A MESOLITHIC ‘PERSISTENT PLACE’
AT
NORTH PARK FARM, BLETCHINGLEY, SURREY
by
Phil Jones
with a major contribution by
Nick Marples
and further contributions by
Richard Bailey, Alex Bayliss, Nicholas Branch, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Adrian A Evans,
Gordon Cook, Randolph E Donahue, Lucy Farr, Chris Green, Rob Kemp, Peter Marshall,
John Stallard and Philip Toms
Monograph 7
SPOILHEAP PUBLICATIONS
A joint venture of Archaeology South-East (part of University College, London)
and Surrey County Archaeological Unit (part of Surrey County Council)
2013
iii
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. iv
iii
5
FLINT REPORT......................................................................................................... 1
Nicholas Marples ........................................................................................................ 1
5.1
Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
5.2
General overview ................................................................................................ 1
5.3
Methodology ....................................................................................................... 3
5.4
Results................................................................................................................. 6
5.4.1
Area 1 and test pit A27 (tables 5.1-5.12, fig 5.18-19) ................................ 6
5.4.2
Area 2 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18 and fig 5.38)..................................... 11
5.4.3
Area 3 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18) ......................................................... 14
5.4.4
Area 4 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18 and 5.38) .......................................... 16
5.4.5
Area 5 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18) ......................................................... 21
5.4.6
Area 6 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-18 and 5.20) ............................................. 22
5.4.7
Area 7 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18) ......................................................... 34
5.4.8
Area 8 (tables 5.1-13; figs 5.1-5.17) ......................................................... 35
5.4.9
Area 9 (tables 5.1-13; figs 5.1-5.17; fig 5.39) .......................................... 37
5.4.10
Area 10 (tables 5.1-14; figs 5.1-5.18 and 5.39) ........................................ 41
5.4.11
Area 11 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-18 and 5.39) ........................................... 46
5.4.12
Area 12 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18) ....................................................... 50
5.4.13
All other flintwork (tables 5.1-12 and 5.14; figs 5.1-5.18)....................... 51
5.5
The illustrated flintwork ................................................................................... 54
5.5.1
Introduction............................................................................................... 54
5.5.2
Catalogue .................................................................................................. 54
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................. 65
TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 72
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Only tables 5.13, 6.1–6.4, and 9.1 are included in the printed text, the rest are made available with the digital supplement.
Table 3.1 Context listing
Table 4.1 Details of monolith sample
Table 4.2 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 4 (south-facing), Area 10, monolith sample RH4
Table 4.3 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 5 (east-facing), Area 7, monolith sample RH5
Table 4.4 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 6 (east-facing), Area 6, monolith sample RH6
Table 4.5 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 8 (south-facing), Area 9, monolith sample RHA1
Table 4.6 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 9 (west-facing), monolith sample upper RH9
Table 4.7 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 9 (west-facing), monolith sample lower RH9
Table 4.8 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 10 (north-facing), Area 11, monolith sample RH1 upper
Table 4.9 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 10 (north-facing), Area 11, monolith sample RH1 lower
Table 4.10 Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 12 (east-facing), Area 11, monolith sample RH12
Table 4.11 Samples, contexts, sections and areas selected for soil micromorphology
Table 5.1 Flintwork totals by Area
Table 5.2 Chip totals by Area
Table 5.3 Flintwork totals by context type (excluding chips)
Table 5.4 Flintwork totals by spit (excluding chips)
Table 5.5 Core classification by Area
Table 5.6 Core dressing classification by Area
Table 5.7 Microlith classification by Area
Table 5.8 Microlith attributes by Area
Table 5.9 Microburin classification by Area
Table 5.10 Other tool and tool debitage classification by Area
Table 5.11 Other tool and tool debitage attributes by Area
Table 5.12 Burnt flintwork totals by Area and lithic artefact category
Table 5.13 Flintwork chronological framework...................................................................................................................................................33
Table 5.14 Diagnostic post-Mesolithic flintwork
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Tool use frequencies according to broad tool types............................................................................................................................81
Spatial distribution of tool use by Area
Tool use percentile distributions for a sample of Mesolithic sites in Britain........................................................................................82
List of tools with use-wear.................................................................................................................................................................84
Table 7.1 Area 1: plant macrofossil results
Table 7.2 Area 6: charcoal results for contexts 156, 123 and 162
Table 7.3 Area 6: plant macrofossil results
Table 7.4 Area 9: charcoal results for hearth 122
Table 7.5 Area 9: plant macrofossil results
Table 7.7 Area 10: charcoal results
Table 7.8 Area 10: plant macrofossil results
Table 7.9 Area 11: charcoal analysis results
Table 7.10 Area 11: plant macrofossil results
Table 8.1 ICPMS data for samples NPF05-01 to NPF05-08
Table 8.2 ICPMS data for samples NPF05-01 to NPF05-08 (cont)
Table 8.3 ICPMS data for samples NPF05-01 to NPF05-08 (cont)
Table 9.1 Radiocarbon results........................................................................................................................................................................ 100
Table 9.2 OSL results from test pit A11
Table 9.3 TL results from flint recovered from test pit A11
x
iii
5
FLINT REPORT
Nicholas Marples
5.1
INTRODUCTION
This report concerns flintwork recovered in the course of excavations at North Park Farm
in 2002 and 2005. Two earlier flintwork reports summarised the results of the 2002
evaluation work and provided an assessment for further work on the flintwork recovered
in 2002 and 2005 (Marples 2003; Marples 2006)
In line with recommendations made in the 2005 assessment report (Marples
2006), all of the outstanding bulk sample residues from 2002 have been processed, and
all of the original classificatory listings have been amended to form an updated series of
Excel spreadsheets sharing the same format as those compiled for the 2005 work.
Part 10.4 of this report integrates the findings from the detailed study presented
below in a general overview of flintwork from the site, and locates the discoveries in
relation to the Surrey Mesolithic, as well as further afield. Sampling problems likely to
have influenced the results of archaeological fieldwork at North Park Farm are also
discussed, and there is some reference to more recent discoveries in the Bletchingley
area.
5.2
GENERAL OVERVIEW
Although the earliest archaeological interventions at North Park Farm took place in 1994,
it is possible that all, or part, of the area subsequently investigated, had been previously
fieldwalked (cf Poulton 1998, 3). There is specific reference to the recovery of Mesolithic
flintwork, both within excavation trenches, and as a ploughsoil scatter across the field,
from an area approximately 500 metres east of the 2005 excavation area (ibid, 15).
An extensive archaeological evaluation conducted in 1994 included five trenches
(TTs 14, 15, 24, 25, and 30) located wholly, and one trench (TT 23) situated partially,
within the 2005 excavation area. Small numbers of lithic artefacts, ranging from 1 to 12,
were recovered from most of these interventions, usually as machining finds or residual
items from post-Mesolithic features, although one linear feature, context 220 in TT 30,
located just north of Area 10 of the 2005 work, produced sixteen worked flints, including
six cores. Only two of the latter could be classified as bladelet types likely to be of
Mesolithic date. No other chronologically diagnostic lithic material was identified, and
the entire evaluation, comprising 62 trenches covering an area of approximately 120,000
square metres (c12 ha), produced only 87 struck flints.
Subsequent machine stripping of the area mostly to the north and east of the 2005
excavations, resulted in the identification of a large number of features of varying dates,
including several pits containing quantities of Mesolithic flintwork. Excavation work
produced just under 10,000 lithic items, including 147 microliths and 147 microburins. A
sample trench dug through the sand infill of a natural valley located at the southern end of
the site (towards the eastern end of the 2005 excavations) yielded 96 worked flints,
including a ‘Horsham’ point microlith.
Identification of this feature led to a subsequent evaluation consisting of eight
trenches and 40 metre square test pits, all of which produced lithic finds (see Marples in
Hayman et al 2004 for full details). 16037 worked flints (8837 of which were chips) were
1
collected, including 196 microliths and 69 microburins (table 5.1 and fig 5.35), with
artefact densities diminishing considerably towards the edges of the valley infill (fig 5.1).
Follow-up excavations carried out in 2005, forming the basis of this report,
produced 49062 lithic artefacts, 13016 of which are chips (tables 5.1-4; figs 5.1-2 and
5.35). All of the area investigations generated material of Mesolithic date, including 829
microliths (fig 5.3) and 358 microburins (fig 5.4). Finds were recovered principally from
buried soils and bioturbated sands across the valley (table 5.3 and fig 5.36), but also from
a number of hearths, three of which have been radiocarbon dated to the Mesolithic
period, and hearth related deposits. Features of Bronze Age, later prehistoric, medieval
and post-medieval date, also produced Mesolithic flintwork.
Within an area encompassing c11500 square metres (approximately 130 x 90
metres in extent), only eight of 453 metre square test pits failed to produce any lithic
artefacts. Flint densities varied from 1 to 604 per square, excluding chips (fig 5.1), and
from 1 to 2805 including chips, but most of the areas investigated were only selectively
sampled with regard to their lithic content. It should be noted that no single metre square
has ever been excavated through the entire sequence of deposits in any of the
archaeological investigations undertaken at North Park Farm, nor have any of the
excavated spits been sampled with a view to recovering all of the flintwork present.
Individual 5cm spit totals ranged from 0 to 253 flints (0 to 1185 including chips).
The overall spit totals for each excavation area are presented in table 5.4, and fig 5.37.
Within the 2005 excavation area, Early Mesolithic material (c10,000-8000 BC)
was recovered from a knapping cluster in Area 1 and from test pits at the western end of
trial trench A sampled in 2002 along the valley floor, possibly extending further south as
far as Area 3.
‘Middle Mesolithic’ activity (here defined as spanning the period c8000-7000
BC) is represented by a group of Horsham points and isosceles triangle microliths in the
north-eastern corner of Area 10 along the northern flank of the valley, as well as by a
hearth radiocarbon dated 7580-7050 BC with associated flintwork in Area 6 along the
valley floor, possibly extending into the earlier part of the Later Mesolithic. This
‘Pioneering’ phase of the Late Mesolithic period (c7000-6000 BC, as suggested by Roger
Ellaby; Ellaby 1987, 63) may also be represented by finds of straight-backed bladelet
microliths from Area 2 close to the north-western edge of the ‘hollow’, two microlith
clusters in Area 10, and another seemingly discrete flint knapping cluster located in Area
4 towards the southern edge of the valley infill, with a microlith inventory consisting
almost solely of straight-backed bladelets.
Flintwork recovered from the immediate vicinity of a hearth dated c6430-6240
BC in Area 9 continues this Late Mesolithic Pioneering Phase activity with microliths
comprising mainly straight-backed bladelets and scalene triangles.
Less certainly, flintwork recovered from Area 11 located towards the eastern end
of the valley at its greatest depth, including very narrow straight-backed forms and 4sided microliths, may extend into the ‘Geometric’ phase of the Later Mesolithic (c60004000 BC), although the date ranges obtained from samples taken from a multi-phase fire
pit which was located here, extend from the Middle Mesolithic (c7460-7170 BC) into the
earlier phase of the Late Mesolithic (c6430-6240 BC).
If Roger Ellaby’s proposed dating for geometric microliths in Surrey is correct,
then another group of 4-sided microliths located towards the central southern edge of
2
Area 10 may well be representative of the later geometric phase of the Late Mesolithic
dating c6000-4000 BC.
Probably belonging to the latest phase of the Late Mesolithic, perhaps dating
around c4500 BC, is a group of tanged point microliths recovered from the north-eastern
part of Area 10.
Although most of the flintwork recovered is likely to be Mesolithic, a few
diagnostic items suggest that some debitage of later date is also present within the
collection. Diagnostic pieces include: one transverse and two barbed-and-tanged
arrowheads; three fragments from ground implements; and four knives including planoconvex examples. Three tortoise cores and a number of other flake cores from the site are
also likely to be of Neolithic date.
Aside from the overt evidence for flint knapping represented by concentrations of
cores and debitage in Areas 1, 4, 6 and 10, the high proportions of chips represented in
most sampled areas, and re-fitting or near re-fitting lithics in Area 1 and parts of Areas 6
and 10, evidence for other task-specific activities is indicated by finds of associated
artefacts including scrapers, burins, adzes, notches, denticulates and serrates, and the
findings of limited lithic microwear analysis, together with the recovery of tool
manufacturing and maintenance products including burin, scraper, notch and adze
sharpening spalls, and microlith manufacturing waste in the form of microburins,
Krukowski microburins (cf Barton 1992, 234) and unfinished microliths.
Various stages of adze manufacture are indicated by the recovery of two adze
roughout/preforms and adze preparation and thinning flakes in several areas, including
three re-fitting groups from Area 6.
Recycling of lithic material is evidenced by the re-working of two adzes as
bladelet cores, and the subsequent use of another as a hammerstone.
Hunting, woodworking, and plant and animal processing are all activities for
which direct or indirect evidence is attested by the flintwork recovered.
5.3
METHODOLOGY
All lithic finds from NPF 02 and NPF 05 were initially classified by context (with
excavation Area, 100 metre square and metre square grid references, context, spit and
bulk sample numbers), and broad artefact category (core; flake, etc., with fragments
designating probable flake fragments), covering all of the initial evaluation trenches, the
12 identified excavation areas, and all other contexts lying outside these areas where
archaeological sampling took place. This data is summarised in tables 5.1 - 5.14.
Overall flintwork totals (excluding chips) are presented by area, principal context
type, and spit, in tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4.
Chips (tables 5.1 and 5.2), here defined as any flake, flake fragment or
indeterminate piece of worked flint with a maximum diameter less than or equal to
10mm, have been quantified on a selective basis, as noted in table 5.2.
Cores (table 5.5) have been classified according to the number and orientation of
identified platforms (one, two, or multi-platform, ie three or more; opposed, orthogonal,
divergent), and principal type of removal (flake or blade), with additional entries for core
shape (pyramidal, cylindrical, prismatic, cube-shaped), and other variables. For a
selection of the main core types identified, see figs 5.32-5.34.
3
Core dressing identification (table 5.6 and fig 5.29)) has been by type (viz:
bilaterally crested blade, unilaterally crested blade, core tablet, partial platform renewal,
core face renewal, plunging piece and unclassified), following Reynier’s (2004)
definitions.
Microliths (tables 5.7 and 5.8), here defined as backed blades with their bulbs of
percussion removed, together with pieces of similar form and dimensions with intact
bulbs, have been classified following a simplified version of Jacobi’s (1978) typological
scheme, encompassing 14 principal types, with the addition of a ‘tanged point’ microlith
type with the addition of a ‘tanged point’ microlith, corresponding to Clark’s Group G
‘shouldered or tanged points, flaked from below’ (Clark & Rankine 1937-8, 64), more
specifically the example from Farnham illustrated in Clark & Rankine 1937-8, fig 7 no
105. Although in other respects similar to Ellaby’s ‘shouldered points’ identified at
Charlwood, where they are regarded as characteristic of the final Surrey Mesolithic, with
steeply blunted thicker right lateral margins (as conventionally viewed, with the bulbar
end at the top) and bases, whilst the leading edge exhibits very fine ‘flatter’ retouch, none
of the North Park Farm examples display the inverse retouch characteristic of the
Charlwood microliths (Ellaby 2004, 18 and fig 2.6). A ‘curved point’ form with
‘Horsham culture’ affinities, illustrated and discussed by Rankine (1946, 6-8), has not
been separately listed, as the type is not a generally recognised microlith form, and only
two examples were recovered, both from Area 6. The principal microlith types as
classified in this report are illustrated in fig 5.31. More detailed classifications
incorporating all relevant Jacobi & Clark (1934) sub-types, following Cotton (2002, 76),
are available in archival format.
Microburins (table 5.9) have been catalogued by type or location of notch
(proximal end of blade, distal, double notch or unclassified), lateralisation of notch (right
notched, left notched) as conventionally viewed with the dorsal face uppermost, bulb at
the bottom, and by fracture type (‘mishit’ if not conventionally oblique, also sometimes
classed as ‘notch and snap’ forms). Related forms, including Krukowski microburins,
unfinished microliths and snapped bulbar fragments, have been listed in the archive. A
selection of the principal types described in this report is illustrated in fig 5.30.
Other tool and tool debitage (tables 5.10-11) comprises ‘standard’ and ‘nonstandard’ tool forms (following Reynier’s definitions; Reynier 2005, 131, 133), as well as
tool debitage (or ‘spalls’; cf Reynier 2005, 133), but excluding microburins and related
forms. Twenty-two different tool and tool waste categories have been identified (see table
5.10 for full listings and figs 5.24-26 for representations of the main types). The terms
‘axe’ and ‘adze’ (which refer primarily to their method of hafting) are here used
interchangeably for any core tool lacking a pick-like point. Items classed as ‘modified’
include miscellaneous edge modified pieces, some of which may be of accidental or
natural origin.
A detailed catalogue of illustrated flintwork from the site is given in part 5.5.
Table 5.12 lists all burnt flintwork by area and principal artefact category. Table
5.13 provides an outline chronological summary for all of the Mesolithic finds from
North Park Farm in relation to other Surrey sites, as well as some other important sites
outside the county. Diagnostic post-Mesolithic flints are listed in table 5.14.
4
These tables and the various archival datasets have together provided the basis for
a series of Area summaries, appraising the recovered flintwork under the following
headings:
(a) Summary
Offering a summary overview of the key aspects of the flintwork from each area.
(b) Sampling
Providing information relating to the extent of horizontal and vertical sampling, both
gross manual and bulk environmental sampling.
(c) Contexts
Describing the full range of sampled contexts for each area.
(d) Quantification
Comprising a simple enumeration of the total number of lithic artefacts recovered
(including and excluding chips), with overall percentages.
(e) Gross horizontal and vertical lithic distribution
Summarizing information relating to gross horizontal and vertical lithic densities (per
metre square or layer/spit).
(f) Raw material and condition
This section addresses the physical appearance and condition of the flintwork, with
regard to patination, re-cortication, breakage, burning and macroscopically visible surface
modification.
(g) Primary technology
Summarises the tabulated data with regard to core and core rejuvenation typology, and
debitage (including chips).
(h) Secondary technology
Summarises the tabulated data with regard to microlith and other tool typology, and spall
(tool waste) classification.
(i) Compositional and distributional variability
Discusses compositional and distributional variability in relation to differing artefact
categories, with regard to both the horizontal and vertical distribution of artefacts.
(j) Re-fits
Notes the number of re-fitting items, or near re-fits, identified in the course of
classification, and as a result of the re-fitting programmes undertaken on material from
Areas 1 and 6, associated with blade and core tool production respectively.
(k) Discussion
5
Presents a general overview of the flintwork in each area, covering the nature of
identified scatters, dating, confidence rating, distribution of artefacts, and other matters.
5.4
RESULTS
5.4.1 Area 1 and test pit A27 (tables 5.1-5.12, fig 5.18-19)
(a) Summary
Area 1 comprised a concentration of flintwork with some re-fitting lithics and high chip
proportions, indicative of an in situ knapping cluster. Although there are one or two
unclassified microliths and two later forms (both extremely diminutive fragments which
are likely to be intrusive), the scatter is probably of Early Mesolithic date. Microburins
recovered here are all proximal types. The distribution of finds around the main cluster
suggests an element of spatial patterning. Higher proportions of burnt lithics coincident
with the centre of the cluster (fig 5.18A) perhaps indicate the former presence of a hearth,
although most of this material is chip sized. The vertical distribution of artefacts is typical
of sandy substrate sites, with gradually diminishing overall counts, but correspondingly
higher proportions of chips and smaller artefacts, throughout the soil profile. In contrast,
there is a tendency for larger pieces, such as cores, irregular waste, large flakes and core
dressings, to be located at higher levels. Although most of the flintwork is fresh, material
within the woodland soil (which includes re-fitting lithics) has clearly been subject to a
degree of post-depositional modification. The extent of the cluster (c2-3m) suggests
limited horizontal displacement, although it may have formed part of a larger
concentration extending into trial trench A (square A27). Three microliths with broken
tips, and the number of microburins recovered, suggest that re-hafting of broken hunting
equipment took place here. Use-wear on one of two scrapers recovered demonstrates that
hide-working was also carried out. Other tools may suggest the processing of plant or
woody material. Overall lithic totals may have been depleted as a result of the loss of
some woodland soil finds, or their gradual incorporation into overlying deposits.
(b) Sampling
All 15 metre squares were bulk sampled, producing 79 individual residues. These were
fully re-sorted because initial quantification indicated a serious under-representation of
the microdebitage component within the hand sorted sample, despite use of a 2mm. sieve,
in order to provide a basis for comparison with other areas, and a more accurate reflection
of total lithic numbers when compared to other modern excavated assemblages (which
usually incorporate the finer sieved component).
Gross sampling usually commenced with the woodland soil 52, but it is unclear
how much Mesolithic material may have been removed as a result of prior machining in
this area, since the highest totals recovered from all metre squares can invariably be
attributed to this deposit, and it appears unlikely that the overlying levels were
completely devoid of flintwork. Some woodland soil is likely to have been lost
inadvertently as a result of machine stripping. Due to microtopographical variations, this
deposit was of varible thickness across the area, in some squares encompassing two spits,
whilst in others it has been excavated ‘as a context’ prior to the assigning of spit
numbers. The most logical presentation of the results of excavation in Area 1, therefore,
seems to be by context type.
6
(c) Contexts
Three layer contexts, ‘woodland soil’ 52, ‘transitional’ layer 34 and ‘clean’ natural sands
60, as well as three tree-throw hollows, were sampled, in up to five 5cm spits, although
for some squares the woodland soil was not assigned any spit number.
(d) Quantification
2581 lithic artefacts were collected, including 2104 chips (81.5% of the total
assemblage). This represents 5.3% of the flintwork quantified for this report, but only
1.3% of the total excluding chips.
(e) Gross horizontal and vertical lithic distribution
Flintwork was concentrated in and around square C5-87 (fig 5.18B). Lithic densities per
metre square varied from 91 to 349 including chips and, excluding chips, from 7 to 86.
Approximately half of the recovered flints derived from layer 52, including most larger
pieces such as cores, core dressings, irregular waste, complete blades and large primary
or secondary flakes, with diminishing quantities thereafter.
(f) Raw material and condition
Mean debitage weight is around 1-2g, greater than in Areas 9 and 11, and perhaps
attributable in part to the loss of woodland soil in those areas (but cf A11 flintwork sizing
from higher levels).
The flintwork is generally honey-coloured to dark brown or dark olive
green/brown (cf figs 5.28 and 5.27), although there are also a few black pieces. Surfaces
and edges are generally fresh, although some material within the woodland soil has
undergone a slight degree of post-depositional modification rendering surfaces slightly
glossy. Surviving cortex is of variable thickness, but generally coarse and off-white. The
predominant hue is comparable to material from Redhill of broadly similar date, which
has been examined by Roger Ellaby (pers comm). Some pieces have a small amount of
iron staining on the cortex.
Breakage rates, at 49.9% of all unmodified flakes and blades, are the lowest
recorded for any of the excavated collections, and may be a further indication of the
lesser degree of post-depositional disturbance in this area implied by higher chip
proportions and a greater number of re-fits.
Only 2.9% of all worked flints (including chips) are burnt. This figure is the
lowest recorded for any of the North Park Farm 2005 areas.
(g) Primary technology
There are high proportions of blades (60 or 12.6% of the total) and blade fragments (132
or 27.7%) amongst the debitage totals, especially in comparison to other areas. Most
blades retain some evidence of soft-hammer removal, ie diffuse bulbs and lipped butts,
whilst the larger, cortical flakes, produced at an earlier stage in the reduction sequence,
retain features characteristic of direct hard hammer percussion, ie pronounced bulbs,
percussion rings, fissures and bulbar scars. Chip proportions are high at 81.5% of all
lithics, although proportionately fewer were present within the woodland soil, probably
as a result of worm action.
7
Two cores are comparable in form to Deepcar types as illustrated in Reynier
2005, 36, (see figs 5.32 nos 1 and 3, and catalogue for further details). Core dressings
include crested blades (fig 5.28 no 47) and rejuvenation flakes (fig 5.27 no 4).
(h) Secondary technology
Few formally retouched pieces were recovered, and it is possible that some at least of the
pieces classified as ‘edge modified’ may be the product of post-depositional factors such
as soil creep and trampling. Nevertheless, one scraper (fig 5.26 no 1) has provided
evidence of dry hide working, and one notched and two modified blades (fig 5.28 no 48
and fig 5.26 nos 22-23) have been associated with plant processing and hide working (see
Donahue in this report). The blade end of a core tool with lenticular cross-section and
transverse sharpening flake scars (probably an axe; fig 5.24 no 4), was recovered several
metres to the east of Area 1 within square A25 of the 2002 evaluation.
Microliths from Area 1 include three oblique points, two of characteristic
Deepcar-type form, one isosceles triangle, another possible isosceles triangle fragment,
and two distal fragments which may have been trapezoidal or rhomboidal forms,
although both could also be classified as oblique truncations. Three points have broken
tips, which are likely to be the product of impact damage, and use-wear analysis has
confirmed that one was used as an armature. A bladelet of lanceolate outline with fine
retouch along both edges may have been used for butchery (see part 6).
Indicative of microlith production are ten microburins (fig 5.28 nos 43-5; fig 5.27
no 25). These are all proximal types of similar proportions, with abraded platform edge
remnants indicating careful blank production, and they include only two mishit examples.
Some (eg fig 5.28 no 44) are characterised by the presence of long and narrow oblique
snap fractures, paralleling the two broken microliths.
One possible Krukowski microburin was recovered from square C5-88. This
piece is similar to an example from Hengistbury Head (Barton 1992, 235) produced in
the course of obliquely blunted point manufacture, and the illustrated broken oblique
point (fig 5.28 no 46) may be of similar origin.
(g) Compositional and distributional variability
Most of the recovered cores, microburins, microliths and modified pieces were located
around the main lithic concentration (fig 5.19C-E), suggesting that these items may have
been dropped or tossed around a central knapping zone. .
Chips show a slight horizontal displacement around the main concentration,
especially with increased depth. This could be due to increased worm activity away from
the larger, originally interlocking or superimposed, lithic components at the centre of the
flint cluster, and/or to a greater degree of initial ‘spray’ away from the centre of knapping
activity.
Most of the re-fitting material spans three of the 15 metre squares sampled.
(j) Re-fits (fig 5.19F-J, fig 5.27 nos 1-6; fig 5.28 nos 1-8)
Apart from a few outliers, the bulk of the flintwork consisted of two readily
distinguishable groups of lithics, here designated as the ‘light nodule’ and ‘dark nodule’
groups. Fifty-one struck flints from test pit A27 located immediately to the north of Area
1 were also examined, and most of these were adjudged to derive from the former, or
8
from another very similar nodule, but probably represent the products of a separate
knapping event. Most were in a very fresh condition, although a handful of items,
including one large secondary flake, displayed slight surface gloss.
The lighter nodule group includes mostly dark greenish-brown to pale yellow or
honey-coloured mottled flints, with the former deriving from the original surface of the
nodule. Paler ovoid cherty inclusions are occasionally present. The cortex is off-white to
buff, smooth, and quite thick. Although of good knapping quality, the flint may derive
from a secondary source, possibly a local ‘Head’ deposit. There are a total of 36 re-fitting
items, comprising nine groups of two to three flints each (eg fig 5.28 nos 1, 2, 4 and 6-8),
and a major block of 16 flints (fig 5.28 nos 3 and 5). A burin (fig 5.28 no 49) and a
scraper (fig 5.28 no 50) may re-fit onto the latter, but their attribution as re-fits is
uncertain owing to ambiguities in the inferred conjoins.
Only four flints were individually plotted. Dorso-ventral or flake/blade on core,
and two break re-fits were identified, forming one main cluster, with the exception of an
isolated pair of break re-fits located on the periphery of the scatter. Twenty-eight refitting flints (77% of all re-fits identified) were recovered from woodland soil 52, six, or
17% of all re-fits, from transitional layer 34, and two (6%) from ‘clean’ natural sand 60.
Where attributable, these spanned spits 1 (five flints) and spit 2 (two flints).
Nine metre squares contained one or more re-fitting pieces, but most (20) were
present within squares C5-77 and C5-87.
In addition to these re-fitting items, another 105 flints (excluding chips) were
identified as probably deriving from the same parent nodule (eg fig 5.28 nos 9-14 and 2550). Sixty-seven of these (or 64%) were found within the woodland soil, and 38 flints
(36%) were recovered from the transitional layer 34 and clean natural sand 60, largely
mirroring the proportions for the re-fitting flints. Their distribution is illustrated in fig
5.19H.
Large numbers of spatially co-incident chips of similar colour (fig 5.28 nos 1524), which are likely to derive from knapping this material, were present throughout Area
1. Together with the re-fitting flintwork, they clearly indicate a largely in situ knapping
cluster with minimal horizontal displacement. Elements of the entire reduction sequence
were present, including large secondary flakes, much bladelet debitage, and abandoned
blade cores. The latter are basically of opposed platform type, and resemble two
illustrated forms from Deepcar published by Reynier in 2004 (fig 5.3.3). Several
microburins, and one broken obliquely blunted point microlith, produced on flint of
similar appearance to the core elements of the light nodule, were found on the periphery
of the main knapping cluster, and these are likely to represent the intended end products
of this reduction sequence.
An unsuccessfully worked core on a cortical nodule trimming flake (fig 5.29 no 2)
and nine other re-fitting elements were excavated within Test pit A27 of the 2002
evaluation (fig 5.19J). Including a re-fitting core tablet and small single platform bladelet
core (fig 5.29 no 4), these were produced on brownish flint identical in appearance to the
lighter nodule identified within Area 1 immediately to the south-west. One dorso-ventral,
and four flake on core re-fits, were recognised, including one retouched flake and one
burnt flake (fig 5.29 nos 2b and 2c). At least one utilised piece and several bladelets from
the same square can also be attributed to the same parent nodule. All of the re-fitting
pieces were recovered from spit 1, which is equivalent to the woodland soil and
9
transitional layer identified in Area 1. One pair of dorso-ventrally re-fitting bladelets span
square C5-66 of the 2005 excavations and test pit A27 of the evaluation. Large numbers
of chips (271 from the same spit) again indicate in situ knapping activity, which clearly
relates to the reduction of an identical raw material source, if not the same partially refitted nodule from Area 1.
Flints from the dark nodule group (fig 5.27) were identifiable by a characteristic
very dark grey/green speckling, as well as by their overall dark olive green/grey,
colouration, and rough, usually very thin, white cortex.
Fifteen re-fitting items have been identified (fig 5.27 nos 1-3), comprising one
pair of dorso-ventrally re-fitting blades and a group of ten flakes and blades re-fitting
onto a bi-platformed bladelet core. No break re-fits appear to be present. The material is
centred on squares C5-76, C5-77 and C5-78, but spans eight test pits in all. Ten re-fitting
flints (66% of all re-fits) were recovered from soil 52, three (or 20%) from layer 34, and
one each from hollow 56 (7%) and clean sand 60 (7%). These figures are comparable to
those for the lighter nodule re-fits summarised above. Most of the assignable flints were
located within spit 1 (5 pieces), with two from spit 2.
An additional 46 lithic items could be attributed with some degree of confidence
to the same nodule (fig 5.27 nos 6-25). Twenty-eight of these, or 61% of the total, were
retrieved from soil 52, 10 (or 22%) from layer 34, and eight pieces (17%) from other
contexts. Their distribution is more restricted than that for the lighter nodule, being
lozenge shaped in plan (fig 5.19F), and only one possible blade fragment was identified
in test pit A27.
Two cores were present (one illustrated from the main re-fitting group, fig 5.33 no
2), and both are characterised by very narrow bladelet removals. They differ in overall
form from the lighter nodule cores, being slightly smaller and more irregular in outline. A
rejuvenation flake (fig 5.27 no 4) and one crested blade were also recovered. Larger
primary or secondary flakes are absent, and very few chips could be identified as deriving
from the same reduction sequence, possiby due to wind deflation. These variations in
spatial distribution, core and blade morphology suggest different knapping episodes, and
possibly even different periods within the Mesolithic. One proximal microburin (fig 5.27
no 25), an unclassified microlith and a possible combination tool, which might have been
produced from the same nodule, were located on the fringes of the scatter in squares C597, C5-98 and C6-8.
(k) Discussion
The flintwork from Area 1 probably represents the residues of two separate knapping
episodes undertaken for the replenishment of broken composite armatures, possibly
centred on a hearth, with some evidence of other tool production and resource processing
activity (dry hide preparation, and plant processing) close by. It is likely that this area
was one of many such clusters located at the western end of the valley, as other excavated
test pits located here (primarily A25 to A27 of the 2002 evaluation), also produced
obliquely blunted point microliths of Deepcar type (fig 5.31 nos 1-4, and 6-7), to the near
total exclusion of later types, as well as comparable debitage and core forms, including
one group of three re-fitting flakes (FS 1). Lithic totals were generally much lower than
in other sampled areas, suggesting short-term visits. Although the full extent of neither
scatter was established, and only a small proportion of the flints were plotted, the
10
southern limits of both groups was indicated by greatly reduced numbers of artefacts, and
the presence of microburins, discarded microliths, and other tool forms located around
the areas of both clusters. Two scrapers (one with evidence of dry hide working) and a
few other retouched pieces were recovered from square C5-78 and adjoining test pit A27
in the north-eastern corner. Evidence of plant and hide use was identified on three blades
from squares C5-66 and C5-97.
Core reduction, which clearly relates to the working of one or more larger nodules
of good quality raw material ultimately deriving from chalk flint deposits, is represented
by five bladelet cores, four of which re-fit to other elements, and a number of dorsoventrally re-fitting blades and flakes. The reduction strategy involved primary flake decortication employing a hard hammerstone, cresting (although this has only been inferred
from the identification of crested pieces), core tablet removals, and careful platform edge
abrasion. Two large cortical flakes were used as cores, and two much smaller flakes with
remnant cortex were converted by retouch into tools. This area produced the highest
proportion of complete blades from any of the excavated samples. Bladelet production,
which probably took place with the use of a soft hammer, was clearly a principal aim of
the knapping undertaken here, in order to furnish blanks for microlith manufacture. Nine
microburins, two Krukowski pieces, and one unfinished form, attest to their production
on site.
Microburin morphology and attributes suggest that most of these pieces could
well have been produced at the same time, and as a group they can clearly be
differentiated from the microlith production waste recovered in Areas 4 and 6.
Microlith forms include narrow obliquely blunted pieces, one lanceolate with microwear
evidence of use in butchery, and a possible trapeze.
Flake tool manufacture is indicated in test pit A27 by one re-fitting retouched
flake, and another retouched piece almost certainly deriving from the same core.
Overall, the material bears some affinities to ‘Deepcar type’ assemblages, such as
those at Waun Fignen Felen in Wales (Barton et al 1995), Bermondsey in south-eastern
England (Sidell et al 2002), and a number of low density Surrey sites (cf Ellaby 1987,
60), both with regard to flint technology and the limited spatial extent of the lithic
scatters. These sites are currently dated around 8500-7700 BC, and would seem to
represent the residues of very short term, episodic visits, geared to the replenishment of
hunting equipment, but with some evidence of other processing activities taking place,
usually on the periphery of the principal knapping scatters.
The horizontal distribution of artefacts conforms to a pattern often encountered on
sandy soils, extending through 30cm or more of worm-sorted deposits, with larger lithic
items concentrated in the upper 5cm of most excavated samples, represented here by the
woodland soil.
5.4.2 Area 2 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18 and fig 5.38)
(a) Summary
Area 2 may constitute part of one or two small, seemingly discrete knapping clusters,
both of which could have been located around hearths represented by burnt flint scatters.
Limited horizontal excavation associated with a ‘checkerboard’ sampling exercise, and
the absence of any fine sieving leading to a near total absence of chips, however,
precludes certainty in this regard. This interpretation is also heavily dependant on
11
interpolated lithic totals for the missing squares. Late Mesolithic activity is implied by the
recovery of straight-backed bladelet microlith fragments. The general Mesolithic
character of the flintwork is suggested by high proportions of blade and bladelet
fragments, typical core dressings and two microburins recovered from one metre square.
(b) Sampling
Lithic material was collected from 16 of 19 metre squares, some of which were only
partially sampled by the excavation of single 5cm spits. Square E3-31, the most
productive, with 42 struck flints from its second spit, was not excavated further, and only
one square was excavated down to a third spit. Checkerboard sampling of the excavated
material from Area 4 produced only two microburins from an eventual total of 25 test
pits?, so any resulting distributions in Area 2 must be treated with the utmost caution.
The extent of any vertical truncation of the flint scatter is unclear since the
woodland soil did not apparently extend beyond the southern half of Area 2, but the
presence of only one core and the generally small size of the debitage recovered suggests
an element of bias in its recovery which may be due, at least in part, to a variety of postdepositional factors including slope processes.
No bulk samples were taken in Area 2, so the almost total absence of chips here is
clearly an artefact of the excavation and sieving methods employed.
(c) Contexts
Although no context numbers were assigned to the flintwork from Area 2, the
preliminary site report states that spit 1 comprised mainly off-white sand, and spit 2
consisted of ‘natural’ orange-yellow sands. Two burnt flint concentrations were identified
which may indicate the former presence of hearths.
(d) Quantification
371 worked flints were collected, including 10 chips (2.7% of the total assemhlage),
constituting only 0.8% of the North Park Farm 2005 lithic total.
(e) Distribution
A heavily interpolated contoured distribution of the total flint count suggests the presence
of a possibly discrete knapping cluster at the northern end of Area 2, centred on one of
two burnt flint concentrations. Metre square lithic densities range from 0 to a maximum
of 92 in square E3-31, with most flints being recovered from spit 1.
The only core present, most irregular waste, and all core dressings were collected
from the first spit sampled. No significant concentration of flintwork is evident around
the southernmost possible hearth.
(f) Raw material
Approximately 25% of the lithic material is patinated white/pale blue to varying degrees.
Most of the remainder is mid-grey or burnt white/grey. It is noteworthy that the lateral
edges on two re-fitting flakes are of completely different hues. There is no apparent
contextual bias in the distribution of patinated or unpatinated pieces, either between
squares or spits. A few pieces are lightly iron stained.
Ninety-eight pieces (25.8% of the total) are burnt.
12
Flake and blade fragmentation, at 57.4% of the worked flint total, is comparable
to figures for the other excavated areas. Otherwise, the material collected is notably fresh,
indeed consistently so (to a greater extent than in some of the other areas sampled).
Where cortex survives, this is usually thick and fresh, and may derive from
primary chalk deposits. In addition there are two pieces of black Bullhead flint, including
one core tablet. This raw material was widely exploited in the Neolithic period, but there
is as yet no convincing evidence for its use in the Mesolithic.
(g) Primary technology
Area 2 contained the second highest proportion (at 40.7% of all flintwork) of blades and
blade fragments from the site. Most are of bladelet proportions (with breadths less than or
equal to 12mm), and likely to have been generated with a view to microlith production.
Few large flakes were present and mean debitage weight for the sample is 2.93g.
Although only one core was collected, the relatively high proportion of core dressings
present in Area 2 (eight examples, or 2.5% of the lithic total) indicates careful core
management. A variety of rejuvenators, 37.5% of which retain evidence of platform edge
abrasion, have been identified, including two core tablets (one illustrated, fig 5.29 no 12),
two core face renewals and a plunging piece.
(h) Secondary technology
Very little retouched material was recovered (only 0.8% of all lithics, which represents
the smallest proportion for North Park Farm 2005).
Seven microliths (all broken) have been identified, including three straight-backed
bladelet forms, one with its bulb intact, and a possible scalene triangle.
Tool debitage includes two microburins, both proximal types notched on the right (as
customarily viewed in illustrations, with the bulbar end at the bottom).
(i) Gross compositional and distributional variability
There is no obvious indication of a secondary lithic cluster in the vicinity of the
postulated southern hearth, but it may be significant that most microliths were located
around the burnt flint concentrations, and both microburins were recovered from the
same metre square adjacent to the northern hearth. Six of nine core dressings were also
distributed around the same feature. There is some correlation in the higher density of
burnt worked flints in and around the northern postulated hearth, but the higher
concentrations and proportions evident in squares D3-70 and D3-79 are not reflected in
the presence of any corresponding burnt flint cluster.
It is noteworthy that the interpolated contoured distributions for total flint counts
indicate a concentration of lithic artefacts in the northern half of Area 2, corresponding to
the area devoid of woodland soil, a fact which might suggest an element of artificiality in
its generation.
It is unclear how far gross compositional variations such as the paucity of cores
and retouched forms in Area 2 can be attributed to post-depositional factors such as
variable sampling or soil formation and movement, rather than to different activities or
intensity of site use, but higher incidences of irregular waste and core dressings, and the
concentration of lithic finds in and around square E3-31 does suggest a knapping focus
here.
13
(j) Re-fitting
One pair of large dorso-ventrally re-fitting flakes was recovered from square E3-31,
which adjoined one of the postulated hearths and which contained the highest density of
lithic artefacts in Area 2. Much of the flintwork recovered appears visually to be very
similar and is likely to derive from a single of knapping episode.
(k) Discussion
Interpretation of Area 2 is clearly hindered by the limited sampling undertaken here, as
well as by uncertainty with regard to the likely extent of any horizontal truncation of
flint-bearing deposits.
However, the evidence of clustering around the northernmost of two possible
hearths, including broken microliths, microburins, core dressings and two re-fitting
artefacts, does indicate an element of hearth-based activity which may have related to
short-term knapping and re-tooling events.
The high incidence of patinated flints here suggests some localised geological
anomaly or incursion of chalk-derived material, as patinated pieces are extremely rare in
any of the other sampled areas.
The fresh, unabraded character of the flintwork recovered, its markedly bladelet
bias, together with the evidence for microlith discard and manufacture, and the presence
of straight-backed bladelet microliths, suggests a date in the Late Mesolithic period after
7000 BC, perhaps equating to Roger Ellaby’s proposed ‘Early Pioneering’ phase for the
Mesolithic period in Surrey.
5.4.3 Area 3 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18)
(a) Summary
Area 3 comprises a rather loose grouping of test pits located on the lower southern valley
side at its western end, just south of Area 1, which may relate to once discrete clusters.
Long obliquely backed points, in the absence of any manifestly later microlith types, and
general debitage and core characteristics, suggest activity in the Early Mesolithic period.
(b) Sampling
Flintwork was recovered from nine metre squares, including three groups of two squares,
spanning up to two 5cm spits. The extent of any vertical truncation of the flintwork
scatters is again unclear, but most finds were collected from spit 1. No bulk sampling was
undertaken, so chip proportions, at 13.5% of all lithics, are clearly not representative.
(c) Contexts
No context numbers were assigned to any of the sampled squares, but the woodland soil
was reportedly confined to the extreme north-eastern corner of the area, so most finds
were presumably derived from grey sands or variants thereof.
(d) Quantification
193 lithic items were recovered, including 26 chips, comprising just 0.4% of the total
North Park Farm 2005 assemblages.
14
(e) Distribution
Two slight concentrations of flintwork are apparent in squares D7-21/31 and D7-16/26.
Excavated metre square totals vary from 3 to 50 per square, with most finds recovered
from spit 1. The only cores to be retrieved were collected as surface finds.
(f) Raw material and condition
The flints from Area 3 are variable in colour, but include mottled greenish types, a few
almost black pieces, some pale buff or slightly orange-brown types, and a few translucent
items. Very few are iron stained, in marked contrast to the flintwork from Area 4 located
only 10m to the east. The material is invariably fresh, almost in mint condition. Surviving
cortex is generally buff in colour and coarse textured, and one of the cores has been
fashioned on a small nodule.
Flake and blade fragments make up 66.5% of the assemblage. 30.3% of the
material from Area 3 is burnt, a figure only exceeded in Area 8 and probably attributable
to the large number of burnt flint clusters identified here.
(g) Primary technology
In Area 3 blade and blade fragments, mostly soft hammer removals, constitute 55.7% of
the total lithic assemblage. Two similarly sized blade cores were recovered as surface
finds outside the sampled squares. Only one core dressing is present and, at 0.6% of all
flintwork, this is the lowest such proportion of rejuvenators recorded in any of the
sampled areas, although one large core tablet was found in trench D of the 2002
evaluation, located adjacent to two of the Area 3 squares.
The mean debitage weight in Area 3 is 3.04g, which is only marginally higher
than in Area 2. An absence of very large flakes and the paucity of primary flakes again
suggest post-depositional losses, or else that the initial stages of core reduction were
carried out elsewhere, but there were a few large blades.
(h) Secondary technology
Ten modified pieces (6% of the total flint count) were recovered, including a polished
piece, one fabricator and one serrate. Six microliths (3.6% of all flintwork, representing
the highest proportion on site) include three very narrow obliquely blunted points, as well
as two unclassified pieces (probably both trapeziform or rhomboidal types) of similar
dimensions and outlines. No other microlith types were identified.
No tool debitage or microburins (a feature replicated in only two other areas)
were present.
(i) Compositional and distributional variability
The limited extent of excavations in this area and the small quantity of flintwork
collected precludes any comprehensive intra-site comparison, but the high proportions of
burnt flintwork noted above are likely to result from intensive use of the area for burning
activities.
Area 3 contained the highest proportion of blades and blade fragments from any
of the 2005 sampled areas, indicating that although some later artefacts are present
(including a fragment from a polished implement), most, if not all, of the remainder are
likely to be of Mesolithic date. As with Area 2, proportions of complete blades (10.2% of
15
the collection) suggest little post-depositional disturbance, but the very low percentage of
complete flakes present (12%, or approximately one half of the mean value for Areas 1 to
12) is clearly at variance with this figure.
(j) Re-fitting
Although no re-fits have been identified, several blades appear to derive from the same
core or cores.
(k) Discussion
Despite the limited nature of archaeological investigations here, the presence of narrow
obliquely blunted point or trapezoidal microliths of very similar form, to the apparent
exclusion of later types, coupled with high proportions of blade debitage, together
indicate that Area 3 may represent a continuation of the Early Mesolithic activity
reported in Area 1 and towards the western end of trial trench A. Despite its proximity to
Area 4, the flintwork recovered in Area 3 exhibits significantly less iron staining.
5.4.4 Area 4 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18 and 5.38)
(a) Summary
Another seemingly discrete flint-knapping cluster was sampled in Area 4, and there is
some evidence here for a distinct microlith manufacturing tradition producing straightbacked bladelets and rods. A largely single period scatter dating to Roger Ellaby’s Late
Mesolithic ‘Pioneering’ phase (c7000-6000 BC) may be represented, although a much
later date towards the very end of the Mesolithic period (within the so-called ‘terminal
Mesolithic’) cannot be excluded. Relatively high proportions of modified flakes and
blades and tool debitage suggest a range of processing or maintenance activities, although
large numbers of edge modified pieces may also indicate some degree of postdepositional disturbance. Although no hearth was located, comparatively high
proportions of burnt lithics centring on the main concentration may point towards the
former presence of one here.
(b) Sampling
37 metre squares were excavated en bloc and four further outliers were also sampled. Up
to four spits were removed, although 21 squares from the main block consisted of three or
less, and four contained only one or two spits. In light of the fact that the first spit
removed was almost invariably the most productive, it seems certain that an unquantified
element of the scatter is missing.
Only two metre squares were bulk sampled, but both of these have been fully
sorted. Overall chip proportions are therefore not representative, except for squares F8-45
(all spits fully processed) and F7-94 (two out of three spits sampled and fully sorted).
(c) Contexts
Four principal layers were sampled (contexts 151-154) as well as five layer combinations
(151/2; 151/3; 152/3; 152/4; and 153/4). Layer 151 is equivalent to 36 and 52, the
‘woodland soil’ sampled in Areas 1 and 6. Context 152 consisted of a thin layer of mid
grey/brown sand. Layer 153 is described as grey, mottled white sand, and 154 as a ‘more
orange-yellow sand’ equated to in situ Folkestone Beds sands.
16
153 was largely, but not wholly, confined to the northern half of the area, whilst
154 was only present in the southern half, corresponding to the highest concentration of
lithic artefacts.
Up to four spits of these contexts were sampled, but some were clearly not of
uniform thickness (especially for the remnant woodland soil 151), and the relative
compositions of the mixed layer contexts is also problematical Only part of one metre
square contained material identified in the context records as trial trench C backfill, so
there appears to have been only minimal impact on the total flint numbers recovered,
despite the fact that part of 151 is clearly shown as having been removed in the earlier
work. Only half of the examined squares were assigned context numbers, so all missing
contexts have been extrapolated by analogy with their adjacent squares.
An indeterminate feature in square F8-45 was numbered 155.
(d) Quantification
6775 flint artefacts were collected altogether from Area 4, including 2501 chips,
representing 13.8% of the North Park Farm 2005 lithic total.
(e) Distribution
There is a clear concentration of lithic artefacts towards the southern end of Area 4
measuring approximately 2 x 2m in extent, although its relative density may be
exaggerated to some extent due to bulk sampling in square F8-45, resulting in higher
proportions of small flakes and blades with maximum diameters just above 10mm. (the
upper limit for chip sized debitage). Individual contoured distribution plans of spits 1-3
show a slight contraction in the extent of the concentration with increasing depth.
Metre square densities (excluding chips) vary from 8 to 606 artefacts, although
the latter figure has almost certainly been inflated to some extent as a result of the bulk
sample processing for square F8-45.
Spit 1, generally equating to layer 151 (the ‘woodland soil’), with 46.1% of the
total excavated excluding chips, was the most productive of those sampled. Diminishing
quantities were recovered in all three succeeding spits 2-4 thereafter, with only 4.8% of
the spit totals attributable to spit 4.
‘Intermediate’ layer 152, which was ‘quite thin’, contained only 3% of the flint
total, although ‘interface’ contexts 151/2, 152/3 and 152/4 constitute a further 10.6%.
Context 153 and contexts 151/3, 152/3 and 153/4 together comprise 17.2% of the layers
total. Layer 154, the ‘natural’ Folkestone Beds sand, perhaps surprisingly, comprised
24% of the excavated layer total.
Proportionately more cores (63.6%), core/burins (62.5%), irregular waste (52.8%)
and hammerstones (100%) were present within spit 1 or woodland soil samples than in
any of the underlying layers, a factor which is probably of taphonomic origin and
attributable to a greater level of worm sorting of smaller artefacts through the soil profile.
Conversely, smaller artefacts such as chips, microliths, microburins and blade fragments,
are more strongly represented in spits 2-4.
(f) Raw material
The flintwork retrieved is predominantly of a brownish hue, but with some greenish
(olive green), cream/buff, and black material present. Much of the flint is iron stained
17
(especially on cortical surfaces), to a greater extent than in any other area. Condition is
generally good to fresh, albeit rather less so away from the main cluster, and sometimes
within spit 1. Cortex is of variable thickness, but invariably off-white and coarse textured
indicating an ultimate source in chalk deposits, although these may have been procured
more immediately from secondary sources.
12.2% of all flintwork is burnt. Edge modified pieces account for almost half
(49.5%) of the Area 4 modified and spall total, slightly less than the site average.
(g) Primary technology
Subjectively at least, Area 4 was characterised by a higher proportion of cortical flakes
and a greater incidence of larger flakes than in any other sampled area. The whole range
of debitage is represented, with chips making up 78% of all flintwork in the fully sorted
samples from squares F7-94 and F8-45, suggesting in situ knapping activity.
Flake and blade fragments together constitute 52.5% of the Area 4 assemblage.
The mean debitage weight is 2.1g.
32.3% of the Area 4 collection comprises blades and blade fragments, whilst
62.5% of all cores have been classified as blade types (although 68.8% of all cores
feature one or more bladelet scars). Single platform blade cores predominate, but
pyramidal forms constitute only 2.1% of the core assemblage from Area 4. A significant
component of the core total is the proportion of blade on flake (14.6%) and flake on flake
cores (8.3%; one example illustrated in fig 5.34, no 1). A distinctive core reduction
strategy may be implied by these proportions, as well as by the range of core dressings
identified; mean core weight is the lowest, at 57.8g, of the five largest excavated core
assemblages. Variables such as platform edge abrasion, incidence of hinge and step
termination scars, and the presence of cortex on cores, are all broadly comparable to the
other excavated samples, but core face renewals (21.1% of all core dressings; fig 5.29 no
15) and partial platform renewals (39.4%) are proportionately more frequent, whilst
crested blades (both bidirectional and unidirectional) and plunging pieces (only two
examples) are correspondingly underrepresented. Blade blanks comprise only 32.1% of
all core dressings. Taken together, these characteristics indicate rather more emphasis on
flake removals in the reduction process, a factor which might be chronologically or
functionally related (inasmuch as the initial stages of core preparation and production are
more evident). Three hammerstones were recovered (one illustrated, fig 5.26 no 26),
providing additional evidence of preliminary core reduction.
(h) Secondary technology
Amongst the 6.9% of all lithic artefacts classified as modified pieces or spalls, a range of
tool types are represented in Area 4, albeit in generally low proportions for each
identified class. One exception to this is the number of burins and core/burins present,
although some of these could probably be classed as ‘pseudo burins’, and some may in
fact be true cores.
Woodworking, or potential woodworking, tools are present in the form of one
small adze (fig 5.24 no 2), 23 notches (one illustrated; fig 5.26 no 18), and four
denticulates. Only five scrapers, many poorly characterised, and one core/scraper were
identified, but twelve piercers suggest that some hide-working activity took place here.
Serrated pieces, often associated with plant processing, are represented by six examples
18
(one flake illustrated; fig 5.26 no15). Truncations, a form commonly identified on
Mesolithic sites, although of uncertain function, constitute 2.1% of the modified flint and
spall total. A blade with transverse chamfer facet and associated retouch (fig 5.26 no 17)
was also recovered here.
Microliths, which form the largest class of retouched pieces at 1.8% of the lithic
total from Area 4 (78 examples in all), show a clear bias towards parallel-sided pieces
(Clark’s Type B microliths) with 54 straight-backed bladelet forms (78% of the microlith
assemblage) and 6 rods (8%). A very high proportion of these pieces are broken (only
two are complete). There are single examples of scalene triangle and tanged point
microliths, although the former is clearly rod-like in form, and a similar piece recovered
from Woodbridge Road in Guildford (Bishop 2008, fig 9.5), has indeed been classified as
a rod. Most of the five obliquely blunted point forms are of similar dimensions, and three
exhibit the oblique snap fractures identified by Rankine 1946, 12) as indicative of
unfinished forms, although they have not been classified as such at Hengistbury Head
(Barton 1992, 223).
Tool production or maintenance is evidenced in the form of three burin spalls, as
well as possible scraper (one), adze (eight), and pick (one; fig 5.25 no 6), sharpening
flakes.
Twenty-three microburins indicate on-site microlith manufacture. Twenty
proximal and three distal types have been identified, of which sixteen (two illustrated; fig
5.30 nos 3 and 8) display straight, as opposed to the oblique, snap fracture facets
associated with conventional microburins. Although characteristic of so-called
microburin mishits, they have alternatively been classed as ‘notch and snap’ types
(Mithen 2000a, 69). Given their very high proportions in Area 4 (totalling 69% of all
microburins), these pieces may well represent a deliberate, as opposed to accidental,
method of microlith manufacture. This supposition is strengthened in relation to the
presence in Area 4 of two so-called ‘spatulate’ forms (fig 5.30 no 10; cf Rankine 1949,
21) and of an unfinished microlith from trench C of the 2002 evaluation. All three pieces
display the straight snap facets that are characteristic of ‘spatulates’, and this is a feature
shared by the related lamelle a cran form (one example; fig 5.30 no 12).
In addition to the microburins are two Krukowski pieces, and one other from
trench C. One of these is of scalene form, whilst the trench C example has been retouched
inversely along one lateral edge.
(i) Distributional variability
Cores and core dressings are concentrated in the area of the main cluster, as are most
microliths, with the notable exception of a group of five obliquely blunted points located
at the northern end of Area 4, which may be of earlier date. Microburins are distributed
rather more diffusely, but still concentrated in the southern half of the area, perhaps
indicating that re-tooling took place around the principal knapping spot. Adze and adze
sharpening flakes also display a slight tendency to be located on the periphery of the
main knapping zone, in keeping with the other North Park Farm excavated areas.
Burnt material seems to be distributed rather evenly throughout all four sampled
spits, but with a clear concentration in squares F8-45 and F7-94, both of which were bulk
sampled, and subsequently re-sorted for microdebitage.
19
(j) Re-fitting
Considered together, trench C and Area 4 have thus far only yielded two pairs of refitting flakes, although it is likely that other re-fits are present. Uncertainty with regard to
the precise extent of vertical truncation of the flintwork in Area 4, and also whether the
southern edge of the main cluster is an artefact of post-depositional processes and/or
sampling imbalances, may undermine the rationale for a concentrated re-fitting
programme.
(k) Discussion
Area 4 would appear to represent a largely single-period knapping cluster focussed on the
southern edge of the area, although five oblique points at the northern end may be of
earlier date. The closest Surrey analogue to the microlith assemblage found here is
provided by Ellaby’s ‘Pioneering’ Late Mesolithic type-site of Kettlebury 59, although
the inversely based forms and scalene triangles typical of the latter are absent in Area 4.
The microlith assemblage shows some affinity to so-called ‘rod only’ microlith
collections of Pennine type (Radley et al 1974, 5; Chatterton 2007, 72-3), and also to the
finds from a small group of features at Two Mile Bottom in Norfolk (Robins 1998).
Narrow straight-backed bladelets from such sites show similarly high breakage rates to
the North Park Farm Area 4 examples, which include only two complete specimens. The
site at Two Mile Bottom has been compared to Oakhanger 3 in Hampshire, which is
noteworthy for its concentration on the exclusive production of rod-like microliths (50
were found) and which, in common with Two Mile Bottom, includes a number of ‘clubshaped’ forms akin to one example from square F8-55 (Robins 1998, 209). Similar
straight-backed pieces, albeit rather more lanceolate-like in outline, have been recovered
at Seamer Carr in Yorkshire in a group of sixteen, probably originally forming part of a
composite tool, found with degraded fragments of wood that was radiocarbon dated to
7540-6670 BC. Even earlier dating is implied for ‘backed blades’ and a single ‘rod’
sharing the same characteristics as ‘straight-backed bladelets’, recovered from the
‘Middle Mesolithic’ hut site at Howick first occupied 7970-7760 BC and abandoned
7740-7560 BC (Bayliss et al 2007, 71). However, much later radiocarbon dates of around
4200 and 4100 BC have been obtained for similar rod-like forms recovered at Lydstep
Haven in Wales (Jacobi 1980, 175), South Haw and March Hill Top in northern England
(Chatterton 2007, 73). Rod-like forms were almost entirely absent from a similarly-dated
microlith assemblage at Charlwood in Surrey which yielded a number of tanged forms
akin to the single specimen from the southernmost end of Area 4. Whilst it is therefore
clear that the predominant microlith form present in Area 4 is of late Mesolithic date, any
more precise dating is not yet possible. As noted by Warren (2007, 142), there is a
growing body of evidence to suggest that, at least in some areas, ‘later Mesolithic’
microliths may have continued in use for around 4000 years.
A similar ambiguity relates to the longevity of obliquely blunted point microliths;
although the form is unambiguously present in most ‘Middle Mesolithic’ assemblages, it
is unclear for how long the form persists into the Late Mesolithic. The oblique points
from the northern part of Area 4, therefore, may or may not be chronologically associated
with the straight-backed microlith types centred on the knapping cluster towards its
southern end.
20
Area 4 would, nevertheless, seem to represent the greater part of a seemingly
discrete flint knapping cluster, probably of limited duration, dating to the Late Mesolithic
period, focussing on the production of straight-backed bladelet and rod-type microliths.
Other activities are implied by the recovery of an adze and adze sharpening flakes,
burins, burin spalls, piercers, scrapers, serrates, and other retouched forms.
5.4.5 Area 5 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18)
(a) Summary
Flintwork from two metre square test pits located between Areas 4 and 6 along the
southern flank of the valley head depression comprised mainly debitage of Mesolithic
type, but included two microliths of straight-backed form, demonstrating yet again the
extent of Mesolthic activity downslope towards the valley floor, and extending the known
range of Late Mesolithic microliths at North Park Farm.
(b) Sampling
Neither square was bulk sampled, so that the figure of one chip recovered here is clearly
an unreliable indication of microdebitage quantities present.
(c) Contexts
A vestige of woodland soil layer 36 was sampled in spit 1 of square F6-89. The
‘transitional’ layer 18 was sampled through single spits in both metre squares. ‘Clean
sand’ layer 106 was excavated in 5 spits in square F6-98 and two spits in square F6-89.
Parts of a tree-throw hollow (148) were sampled in both metre squares.
(d) Quantification
183 worked flints were collected altogether, including only one chip, constituting 0.5% of
the North Park Farm 2005 total by number.
(e) Distribution
Square F6-98 contained nearly twice as many lithic artefacts (118) as F6-89 (65). The
highest totals were recovered from either the third or fourth spits. Most finds (144 in all,
or 79%) were retrieved from layer 106 and a further 23 (13% in all) from tree-throw
hollow 146. Only eight and seven artefacts respectively (8% of the total) were collected
from the woodland soil remnant 36 and transitional layer 18.
(f) Raw material and condition
The flintwork is predominantly pale to mid grey, occasionally off-white, sometimes with
a light tan shade. Cortex, where present, is rough in texture and off-white, with very rare
iron staining confined to sub-surface cortex. The differences in surface appearance
between the lithic finds recovered here and in Area 4 may well be due to localised soil
and slope processes, especially in view of the similarities between the flintwork from test
pit B8 and Area 4, both of which were located on the fringes of the woodland soil.
The finds are generally in a fresh to mint condition, although one of the cores
displays some surface modification, almost certainly the product of post-depositional
processes.
21
Broken flakes and blades together make up 54.4% of the assemblage, and there
were three edge modified pieces which may be of accidental or natural origin.
Burnt worked flint proportions were one of the lowest recorded for North Park
Farm, at 7.3%.
(g) Primary technology
Mean debitage weight (excluding chips) is 1.52g, implying a paucity of large flakes,
blades and chunks.
Blades and blade fragments constitute 34% of the flint collection, indicating its
likely early prehistoric date. Both cores retain bladelet scars, although only one of these
has been classified as a blade core; both are small, with a mean weight of 30g.
Six dressings, which include three crested pieces, attest to some degree of core
preparation and maintenance.
(h) Secondary technology
The ten modified pieces and spalls found in Area 5 include two typical Mesolithic
truncations, as well as one adze sharpening flake. There is also one possible scraper
sharpening flake.
Single probable straight-backed bladelet microlith fragments were recovered from
each squarem, but no microburins were identified (Area 5 is one of only three sampled
areas not to produce any).
(i) Compositional and distributional variability
No significant compositional or distributional variations were apparent between the two
sampled squares, apart from their overall lithic counts as noted above.
No burnt material was recovered from layers 18 or 36.
(j) Re-fitting
No re-fits were identified, although many pieces have the appearance of deriving from
the same, or a very limited number, of cores.
(k) Discussion
The flintwork from these two squares, with the possible exception of some finds from
tree-throw hollow 148, is likely to be of Late Mesolithic date although, given current
uncertainty regarding the date of introduction of straight-backed bladelet forms (see Area
4 discussion above), a later Middle Mesolithic origin cannot be ruled out.
The visual appearance and generally smaller size of the cores and debitage
recovered in Area 5 set them apart from the lithics in Area 4.
5.4.6 Area 6 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-18 and 5.20)
(a) Summary
Area 6 included two hearths at its northern end, one of which (161) has been radiocarbon
dated to 7580-7050 BC. A distinct lithic concentration is evident around the northern
edge of the smaller undated hearth (156). A lesser concentration of flintwork is apparent
among the south-eastern metre square samples, although high lithic totals characterise the
area as a whole.
22
High densities of microliths and microburins suggest an area of intensive activity,
including distinctive modes of microlith manufacture indicated by the atypical
lateralisation of microburins. Earlier and later stages of adze manufacture are indicated
by concentrations of thinning flakes at the northern end of Area 6, and by small numbers
of thinning flakes across the site. A wide range of tool forms and modified pieces imply
the processing or task-specific activities characterisitic of a home base or relatively fixed
facilities associated by Michael Reynier (2005) with climatic, floral and faunal changes
induced in the course of the ‘Middle Mesolithic’ period (c8000-7000 BC).
In addition to large numbers of thinning and sharpening flakes, possibly
associated clusters of denticulates and notches indicate woodworking. Antler/bone
processing is implied by the presence of burins and burin spalls, whilst hide processing
may be reflected in small numbers of scrapers, piercers and (possibly) truncations.
Microlith forms, including three ‘Horsham’ points and two inverse basally
retouched points, suggest that some of the flintwork is contemporary with the
northernmost hearth, and may represent a ‘transitional’ Middle Mesolithic industry.
Typical of the earlier part at least of the Late Mesolithic (dating from c7000 BC) are large
numbers of straight-backed bladelets. The microlith assemblage has some affinities with
those from Rock Common in Sussex (Harding 2000, 36) and others of ‘Honey Hill’ type
(Reynier 2005, 28).
(b) Sampling
60 metre squares were sampled here as part of the North Park Farm 2005 excavations.
Two squares, A20 and A21, sampled in 2002, fell wholly or partially within the same
area, as did part of trial trench A from the same evaluation. A third metre square, A31,
lying within the same trench, was located just under a metre west of the 2005 excavation
area.
Thirty-five metre squares were bulk sampled, in addition to the three squares from
the 2002 evaluation. From a total of 206 bulk samples taken, 26 (or 13%) have been fully
re-sorted for the lithic component. Only square F5-59 has been fully processed.
Up to ten 5cm flint-bearing spits were excavated, encompassing a variety of contexts.
(c) Contexts
Contexts found to contain a lithic element, which were sampled, include three layers,
some combined layer/feature contexts, four ‘grey cones’, four tree-throw hollows, a
hearth (156), one flint concentration (158), and a small number of miscellaneous features.
Excavated layers included a remnant of woodland soil 36, largely confined to the
southern end of the area, ‘transitional’ layer 18, clean sand 106/119, and combinations
thereof (36/18 and 18/106), together encompassing up to 10 five-centimetre spits
spanning six context types.
(d) Quantification
10636 lithic artefacts and 4945 chips have been quantified to date. Chip proportions
(31.8% of the total collection) are under-represented as a result of incomplete processing,
with only 13% of the environmental samples fully sorted to microdebitage level. For the
fully processed samples, chip proportions are consistently high (averaging 70% of all
lithics).
23
(e) Distribution
Metre square lithic totals (excluding chips, but including the 2002 evaluation finds) range
from 54 to 455. The contoured distribution plot (fig 5.20A) indicates a concentration
around the northern edge of hearth 156, with a separate, less distinct cluster in the southeastern corner. Flint totals for the four metre squares encompassing dated hearth 161 are
slightly higher than those in the immediately surrounding squares, whilst squares in the
area of the southern tree-throw hollows are generally lower than the norm.
Most of the excavated assemblage (4344 items representing 52.1% of the lithic total) was
retrieved from ‘transitional’ layer 18. Just over a third of the total (2992 pieces, or 35.9%)
was collected from the natural grey sand 106. Although woodland soil 36 accounted for
only 471 worked flints (5.6% of the total), it should be borne in mind that most of this
material was collected only as machining remnants from the southern half of the area. In
square A20, where three five centimetre spits of the woodland soil were excavated, 102
flint artefacts (excluding chips) were recovered, and this total (representing 18% of all
lithics found here, excluding chips) may well be under-representative owing to the
presence of part of tree-throw hollow 150.
(f) Raw material and condition
Although a wide spectrum of colours is apparent in the worked flint from Area 6, the
predominant hue is olive green, usually mottled. Other surface hues present include pale
to mid grey, off-white, pale tan and orange-red. Some flints are semi-translucent, but
there does not appear to be any patterning in their distribution.
Much of the material is opaque and cherty, most noticeably with regard to the
adze thinning and sharpening flakes from square A20, although it is not clear whether
this derives from pure chert or cherty flint sources. Surviving cortex is generally coarse
and off-white, but of variable thickness. In addition to chalk-derived material, there is a
very small Bullhead flint component probably of later (Neolithic) date.
Condition is extremely variable; although mint condition flintwork is present in
many areas, some flints have undergone varying degrees of post-depositional
modification. Such changes include a very slight degree of rolling or surface smoothing,
often accompanied by surface speckling and/or pitting, and the flint is often opaque.
These characteristics are common on many of the flints deriving from woodland soil 36,
as well as those retrieved from tree-throw hollows.
Flake and blade fragments make up 57% of the total flint assemblage (excluding
chips), a figure that is broadly comparable to the proportions in Areas 2, 4, 5 and 10, and
which does not signify any greater degree of post-depositional damage. 7.9% of all
worked flint (including chips) is burnt, although proportions vary by layer and context
type (see (i) below).
(g) Primary technology
Mean debitage weight is 1.7g for a transect sample. There are a few large cortical flakes
present that are likely to relate to the preliminary stages of nodule reduction and core
preparation or testing.
Typical of the North Park Farm lithic assemblages, and indicative of Mesolithic
activity, are the proportions of blade and blade fragments present in Area 6, with a
24
combined figure of 32.5% of the total flint count. Many of these blades are of bladelet
proportions (with widths less than or equal to 12mm) This tendency is reflected in the
number of cores (61 or 75.3% of all cores) with one or more bladelet scars, and the high
proportion of blade cores identified (totalling 58, or 69.9% of the core total).
Characteristic ‘pyramidal’ and ‘cylindrical’ forms are present (fig 5.32 nos 2 and 4), with
ten (12%) and three (3.6%) examples of each, and there are higher proportions of double
platform types (18% opposed, 9.6% orthogonal).
Although the mean weight of 70.9g indicates a tendency for discards in Area 6 to
be slightly larger than the North Park Farm average of 65.6g, edge abrasion is evident on
43.4% of all cores, and the high incidence of core dressings here also indicates careful
resource management. Bilaterally and unilaterally (fig 5.29 no 8) crested pieces are
present, with seven examples (3.6%) and 65 examples (33% of all dressings)
respectively. Plunging blades and flakes (fig 5.29 no 9) are also well represented with 21
pieces, or 10.7% of all dressings, and there are 16 core tablets (8%; fig 5.29 no 11).
Chip proportions, at 70% of all lithic artefacts amongst the fully processed
samples, are consistent with in situ knapping activity.
(h) Secondary technology
As is the case with most of the excavated areas, miscellaneous modified pieces constitute
the largest proportion of possible tools, with 257 examples or 52% of all modified and
spall forms. A range of formal tool types are also represented, including burins (24 or
4.9% of the modified and spall total; fig 5.26 nos 10 and11)), denticulates (17 examples
or 3.4%; fig 5.26 nos 12 and13)), notches (32 or 6.5%), piercers (eight or 1.6%; fig 5.26
no 7)), scrapers (19 or 3.8%; fig 5.26 nos 2 and 3), serrates (13 or 2.6%), and truncations
(11 examples constituting 2.2% of the ‘tool’ and tool waste total; fig 5.26 nos 4 and 5).
These totals and proportions are not dissimilar to figures from the other excavated areas,
with the exception of denticulates, the strong representation of which may relate to an
area of woodworking in the southern half of Area 6.
Microlith totals and percentages are indicated in table 5.7. The two commonest
microlithic forms are obliquely blunted points (31 pieces or 13% of all microliths) and
straight-backed bladelet forms (104 examples, or 46%). Of chronological significance are
three hollow-based or ‘Horsham’ points and 12 inversely retouched microliths. The latter
include three inverse basally retouched points which could be contemporary with hollowbased types, possibly dating to the latter half of the 8th Millennium cal BC (Reynier
2005, 27). Two other microlithic forms, one recovered from test pit A31 of the 2002
evaluation (fig 5.31 no 29), and which are likely to be of similar date, have been classed
by Rankine (Rankine 1946, 6) as ‘curved points’ and they have usually been recovered as
surface finds from sites also producing Horsham period microliths.
Almost entirely absent from the microlith assemblage are scalene triangles (only
four specimens, three of which were found close to the southern edge of Area 6).
74% of all identified microliths are broken. This figure compares well with the
77% of all microliths at Kettlebury 103 (Reynier 2002, 217) where the breakage rate has
been described as “higher than expected” (possibly as a result of deliberate discard),
especially given the high incidence of fracture amongst straight-backed bladelets at North
Park Farm and other sites (eg Two Mile Bottom; Robins 1998).
25
11% of all microliths are burnt. Although this is the lowest such proportion of
burnt microliths from any of the North Park Farm sampled areas, the figure is still almost
double that for burnt microburins in Area 6, and these generally higher incidences of
burnt artefacts are probably of cultural origin, deriving from the deliberate discard of
‘spent’ microliths into hearths, or they may relate to the cooking of carcasses with stillembedded armatures (cf Sidell et al 2002, 15).
Only 13 microliths retained their bulbs of percussion, but square A31, which
probably represents part of a straight-backed bladelet production area where the
microburin technique was not generally employed, produced a further five examples.
Area 6 also produced significant numbers of right lateralised microliths, with 54
examples representing 33% of all classified microliths.
In addition to eight Krukowski pieces implying microlith manufacture in Area 6,
there are 120 microburins and six unfinished microliths, together constituting 1.3% of the
total lithic assemblage from Area 6, whilst microburins sensu strictu account for 33.5%
of the North Park Farm total. These include 98 proximal types (fig 5.30 no 2),
representing 81.6% of all microburins, 17 distal (14.2%; fig 5.30 no 6) and two possible
double forms (1.6%; fig 5.30 no 9). Of particular significance is the high proportion of
atypically notched microburins from Area 6 (eg fig 5.30 nos 2 and 5), with 22.5% of the
total, matching the highest proportion of right lateralised microliths from any area
sampled. A distinct trend in microlith production is indicated, involving large and small,
proximal and distal, as well as some inversely retouched microburin types. The large
dimensions of some examples (typically up to 16mm wide, reflecting microlith
production from blades as opposed to bladelets) are comparable to pieces recovered at
Goldhoard, a site associated with ‘Horsham’ points (Rankine 1952, 8).
Unfinished microliths or ‘intermediate forms’ include one notched piece with
additional lateral retouch (fig 5.30 no 13), similar to examples from Star Carr and
Kettlebury (Clark 1971, fig 36 no 67; Rankine 1946, fig 2 no 8), representing incomplete
isosceles triangles. There is also one piece with partial lateral retouch and an incomplete
inverse notch which may be related to hollow-based point production.
Other tool debitage includes three burin spalls (one of which is clearly a resharpening spall), nine possible scraper sharpening flakes, and 32 adze sharpening flakes
(fig 5.25 nos 1-4), although some of these are not typical sharpening pieces.
Axe thinning flakes are also well represented in Area 6.
(i) Compositional and distributional variability
One significant factor affecting total flint and lithic artefact category distributional
variability is the presence of the two tree-throw hollows 72/76 and 57 in the southern half
of the excavated area. Overall totals, as well as specific artefact distributions, are clearly
much lower in the area of the hollows, such that the concentration at the northern end of
the site may be exaggerated to some extent, although the principal cluster of artefacts
around hearth 156 is still likely to reflect an original concentration there.
Microlith densities vary between 0 and 16, and their distribution mirrors the gross
lithic distributional pattern, with a low-level scatter of oblique points across most of Area
6. Straight-backed bladelets appear to concentrate to a greater extent in and around the
two hearths, although one particularly high density cluster of 14 pieces is evident in
square A31. Inversely retouched microliths, both curved points, and the three ‘Horsham’
26
points (which may all be coeval) appear to form two loosely defined clusters at the
northern and southern ends of Area 6.
Microburin distribution is also centred to some extent on the area of greatest lithic
concentration, but sub-types (whether proximal or distal, typically or atypically notched)
are spread across the entire area. The distribution of atypical microburins suggests the
existence of discrete groupings, whilst closer inspection of these types with regard to
size, shape, appearance, and other variables including the presence of cortex and platform
edge abrasion, indicates three or four related clusters of microburins encompassing right
and left notched pieces which may be the product of discrete knapping events sharing the
same mode of microlith manufacture.
Also of potential significance is the coincident distribution of adze sharpening
flakes, denticulates and notches in the south-eastern corner of the site and between
hearths 156 and 161.
Most flake cores are present within the southern half of Area 6, and three
pyramidal types are located close to its southern edge.
Also worthy of note is the high incidence within square A31 of straight-backed
bladelet microliths (including five bulbar examples), coupled with high frequencies of
bladelets and bladelet fragments, including chip-sized pieces, suggesting microlith
production without employing the microburin technique (only one microburin, a distal
example, was recovered here).
Proportions of burnt lithics vary by layer and context type; unsurprisingly, higher
proportions of burnt flintwork are present within hearth 156 and the closely associated
‘grey cones’ (where 17.2% of all lithics are burnt).
Fig 5.20 presents, in the form of contour plots, the spatial distribution data
relating to the identified core tool groups detailed below. Similar plots relating to
complete blades, burnt worked flint, microliths, microburins, blade cores, and core
dressings were prepared to archive standard which, considered together, indicate an area
of burnt lithics immediately east of hearth 156, with an area of blade production
represented by complete blades, blade cores and rejuvenation flakes between hearths 156
and 161. Discrete microburin and microlith clusters are evident immediately to the north
and south of these concentrations, with the main foci of adze manufacturing waste
located still further north. Adze sharpening flakes are present throughout Area 6 (fig
5.20E), although three small clusters of artefacts are evident in squares F5-59, F5-97 and
-98, and F6-14 and -24.
(j) Re-fitting
Only two pairs of re-fitting artefacts were identified in the course of classification,
although many near re-fits were also noted. The two re-fits comprise a retouched crested
blade and single platform core produced on a thinning type flake from square F5-99 (fig
5.29 no 1), and a pair of dorso-ventrally re-fitting flakes from tree-throw hollow 72.
Three groups of re-fitting adze manufacturing flakes were subsequently identified
within the northern half of Area 6. All of the flints from Area 6, including finds recovered
from the relevant areas of the 2002 evaluation (square A20, Flint Scatter FS1 and trench
A machining), however, were inspected in order to identify possible conjoins and pieces
of similar appearance which were likely to relate to the same manufacturing sequences.
Group A was produced from an opaque yellowish cherty flint, Group B from a distinctive
27
speckled grey-brown flint with off-white interior, and Group C consisted of brown
mottled flint.
Group A (figs 5.22 and 5.23 nos 1-8)
The flints of Group A were usually yellow, occasionally slightly paler off-white or pale
grey (possibly relating to their burial environment), often with cherty patches. The very
small number of pieces with remnant cortex, however (eg fig 5.23 no 6), were reddishbrown immediately beneath the cortex, and the latter was smooth and off-white.
Group A consisted of 32 re-fitting pieces deriving from a single episode of adze
manufacture comprising 10 pairs of break re-fits and four groups of dorso-ventral re-fits
(14 pieces altogether, excluding breaks). The latter comprises one group of three re-fits
including an adze sharpening flake (fig 5.22 no 1), another group (fig 5.22 no 2)
consisting of seven dorso-ventral re-fits (with three pairs of break re-fits already noted),
and two pairs of re-fitting eraillure flakes and parent flakes (fig 5.22 nos 10 and 11).
Interpretation of the horizontal distribution of this material is hampered by a lack
of precise plotting (most relevant finds were recovered from within a slight hollow
numbered as context 158). Relevant information was mainly pieced together from the
2002 evaluation plots and photographs. These indicate that (for the 2002 material at least)
re-fits extended up to 50cm horizontally (fig 5.20F). All of the identified re-fits were
located within square F5-59 (14 pieces), square F5-69 (one piece), and test pit A20 of the
2002 evaluation which spanned the same two squares, although re-fits did not extend into
the western edge of A20.
Break re-fits spanned four spits (three in the 2002 evaluation), three metre square
test pits (although most lay within F5-59 and were up to 50cm apart), and three layer
contexts. The latter included context 36/18 (although this piece was exposed in 2002 after
the removal of woodland soil 36), ‘transitional’ layer 18, ‘clean’ sand 106 and flint
concentration 158, which occupied a similar stratigraphic horizon. Aside from
concentration 158, six break re-fits were found in transitional layer 18, and only one in
clean sand 106, which re-fitted onto another fragment from layer 18. Interestingly, the
latter fragment was slightly paler than its re-fitting counterpart in layer 18, indicating that
the slight discolouration evident on this, and many other pieces retrieved from the
‘transitional’ layer and overlying woodland soil, is of post-depositional origin (probably
relating to the slight humic content of these deposits). Dorso-ventrally re-fitting pieces
spanned two spits, four from spit 1 and two from spit 2, of squares F5-59 and F5-69, four
pieces from spit 8 of test pit A20 from the 2002 excavation corresponding with F5-59 and
F5-69, as well as six others collected as flint concentration 158. Most were located within
square F5-59, and all of the dorso-ventral re-fits identified were confined to layer 18,
although four from spit 8 of test pit A20 may have extended into the clean sand 106.
Clearly, the re-fitting material formed a compact group, extending slightly beyond the
mapped extent of the slight hollow containing concentration 158.
The two eraillure flake re-fits spanned spit 8 of test pit A20, on the fringes of
concentration 158, and spits 1 and 2 of square F5-59, which may have been located just
north of the same concentration.
All of the re-fitting material relating to the later stages of an adze manufacturing
episode utilizing a distinctive opaque yellowish flint with cherty inclusions, was clustered
within, or just beyond the slight hollow identified as 158, and most pieces were similarly
28
clustered horizontally within two 5cm spits, although it is possible that the relevant
artefact bearing horizon was only just over 5cm thick.
Only eight chips from square F5-59, and one from square F5-67, which can be
identified as deriving from the same raw material that was employed in this episode of
adze manufacture, were recovered from the many bulk samples collected here. Only a
few trace elements of remnant cortex were present, so the initial, preparation, flakes are
missing. Clearly only a very small element of the production sequence was present. Most,
if not all, of the breakages identified can be attributed to incidental fractures relating to
the method and mode of knapping (probably using a soft stone hammer, as languette and
siret breaks are both present, and there are a number of flakes with missing bulbs), as
well as to the sometimes brittle character of the raw material used. There are a number of
other attributes of the re-fitting flakes which characterise them as products of adze
manufacture, viz their overall shape, curvature, presence of multi directional dorsal flake
scars, butt, bulb and termination types, and the presence of sometimes pronounced
eraillure scars. In addition to the documented re-fitting eraillure flakes, there are three
similar flakes from F5-59 which could not be re-fitted.
The limited spatial extent of this re-fitting group would seem to suggest that it
might represent a dumping episode of redundant flakes outside, or towards the periphery,
of an occupation area (tent or hut structure), or else within a pre-existing hollow or slight
depression. The presence of a re-fitting sharpening flake, however, implies that the acts
of manufacture and maintenance occurred in the same location.
In addition to the identified re-fits, 144 worked flints of identical or similar
appearance, certainly or probably deriving from the same knapping episode, were also
recovered from the same two metre squares (including test pit A20) as well as from 20
others within the sampled portion of 10 metre grid square F5 (see the contour plot fig
5.20B) which clearly indicates a concentration of this material in squares F5-59 and F569). Two flakes were collected in the course of the machine stripping of trial trench A
within the same general area, and two more were recovered from Flint Scatter 1 (FS 1)
located immediately south of A20. Many of these pieces shared the same attributes
identified amongst the re-fitting groups. The material spanned six 5cm spits within test
pit A20 (one each from spits 3-5, four from spit 6, four from spit 7 and one from spit 8).
For the 2005 excavation, the lithics spanned five 5cm spits. 26 flints (27%) were found in
spit 1, 45 (46%) in spit 2, 21 (21%) in spit 3, four (4%) in spit 4 and two (2%) in spit 5.
The majority, therefore, were probably located within a c10-15cm band of variably dirty
to clean grey sands. Intended blade production is not generally represented for this raw
material within Area 6, although two pyramidal bladelet cores were recovered from
square F6-36 at the southern end and just to the south within square F6-55, and a core
fragment (fig 5.23 no 8), which may itself derive from the same adze production waste,
was found in square F5-98 on the fringes of its general distribution. Most of these pieces
(64, or 43%) were collected from ‘transitional’ layer 18, with a further 26 (18%) from
clean sand 106, seven (5%) from 18/106, three (2%) from woodland soil 36 and four
(2.5%) from 36/18. Thirty (20%) were excavated as part of flint concentration 158,
thirteen (9%) from tree-throw 150, and one (0.5%) from ‘grey cone’ 168. The condition
of most of this material is generally quite fresh, although some of the machine collected
pieces and those deriving from the woodland soil or woodland soil/transitional layer
interface are less so. When plotted (see contour plan), this flintwork was clearly
29
concentrated within and around grid squares F5-59 and F5-69 containing the bulk of the
re-fits, indicating its likely identification as similar adze manufacturing waste, but there
were also two very small sub-clusters located just to the south and south-west of the
principal concentration. It is important to note that none of the re-fitting material or any
of the other associated pieces were burnt, even slightly, although it is possible that some
heavily burnt artefacts might have escaped identification.
Very few cortical flakes were found amongst either the re-fitting group of flints or
the associated pieces of Group A, and they all clearly relate to the later stages of adze
manufacture, unlike Group B.
Group B (fig 5.21)
For the ‘speckled’ adze material of Group B, all of the re-fitting pieces, except for an
outlier located c5m to the south-west within square F6-14, were contained within four
contiguous metre squares: F5-57 (one flint), F5-67 (five) F5-68 (five) and F5-77 (two)
(fig 5.20G). They may, however, have been grouped more closely together within an area
of only one square metre, but because none of the finds were plotted, this cannot now be
confirmed. The re-fits spanned three 5cm spits and three contexts, as follows: spit 1 (five
flints), spit 2 (six flints), spit 3 (two flints) and one unassigned; with five items from
‘transitional’ layer 18, eight from ‘clean’ sand 106 and one from grey ‘cone’ 157.
Only dorso-ventral re-fits were identified. These comprised seven pairs of refitting flakes, many of them quite large secondary flakes with remnant cortex, five of
which re-fitted back together to form one block of seven flakes (fig 5.21 no 1). Although
the flint was invariably speckled and usually grey-brown in colour, three pieces from the
interior of the parent nodule were more uniformly off-white to pale grey, and the flint
contained a small fossil sponge. These latter pieces clearly resembled a complete adze
recovered in 2001 c100m north-east of the 2005 excavations, and a pair of nearly refitting sharpening flakes removed from opposite sides of the same parent implement,
which were found in squares F5-68 and F5-59 (fig 5.21 nos 25 and 27).
The characteristic L-shape of many of these flakes in plan, their divergent
margins, evidence of hard hammer percussion in the form of incipient cones on their
broad plain or dihedral butts, and sometimes curving profiles, together suggest that these
are adze manufacturing decortication or preparation flakes (sensu Ashton 1988, 316),
resulting from the initial stages of adze rough-out manufacture. They also strongly
resemble similar products resulting from adze manufacture replication by Karl Lee.
One pair of dorso-ventrally re-fitting flakes and at least one other flake, which are
much thinner than the others, and which retain only a trace of cortex, may have been
detached using a soft stone hammer after the intitial stages of rough-out manufacture.
In addition to the re-fitting finds, 73 other, generally smaller, flakes were
identified as belonging to the same parent nodule, and their distribution is illustrated in
the contour plot of fig 5.20C. 26 metre squares contained similar flintwork, most of
which was recovered within and around the four squares containing re-fits, forming a
nucleated cluster. In addition to two outliers in squares F6-36 and F6-37, there is a small
sub-group of five flints within squares F6-14, F6-15 and F6-24, which clearly relate to
the isolated flake from F6-14 which re-fits onto two others c5m further north within
square F5-67. Their horizontal distribution largely mirrors that of the re-fitting pieces,
with 23 flints (36%) from spit 1, 22 from spit 2 (35%), eight from spit 3 (13%), three
30
from spit 4 (5%), and seven (11%) pieces from spit 5, which was confined to grey cone
157. Two pieces (3%) were retrieved from woodland soil 36, one (2%) from context
18/36, 26 (39%) from the transitional deposit 18, 23 (35%) from clean sand 106, eight
(15%) from grey cone 157, with one each from flint concentration 158 and tree-throw 33.
Most of the relevant finds were therefore clearly present within c5-10cm of the
transitional layer 18 and the underlying clean grey sand 106. Many of these flints also
display characteristic features of adze production flakes, but they are generally smaller
and thinner, and probably relate to the later stages of adze manufacture.
Group B therefore comprises adze manufacturing waste from the initial and
subsequent rough-out phases of production, mostly concentrated in one location, but with
a clear link to a sub-cluster c5m to the south-west. As with Group A, the material
obviously represents but a small portion of the debitage likely to have been generated in
one knapping event, and may represent the dumping of hazardous flakes which would
probably have been of no further use. Two sharpening flakes (near re-fits struck from
opposing faces of the parent implement) are likely to have been removed from the
finished adze. The distribution of Group B is clearly discrete from Group A, and both of
these clusters are located on the fringes of an area of complete blade distribution centred
on squares F5-77 and F5-68.
Group C (fig 5.23 nos 9-14)
Group C comprises a small number of mottled brown/grey re-fitting preparation and
thinning flakes from contiguous metre squares F5-57 and F5-66 (fig 5.20H). Three large
cortical dorso-ventral re-fits (fig 5.23 no 9) were found in square F5-57, spanning spits 1
(one flake) and spit 3 (two flakes), equivalent to ‘transitional’ layer 18 and ‘clean’ sand
106, respectively. Two of these flakes, with large areas of cortex, could be classed as
preparation flakes, whilst the third, which is thinner, of curved profile, with divergent
margins, multi-directional flake scars and a butt of complex form bearing the scars of
prior removals, could be classed as a finishing flake. Two similar dorso-ventrally refitting flakes (fig 5.23 no 10) were recovered from square F5-66. Both were located
within spit 1, of ‘transitional’ layer 18. All of the re-fitting material, therefore, as with
Groups A and B, spanned three 5cm spits, but it could have been contained within a band
of only several centimetres.
In addition to the re-fits, a few pieces of the same raw material were identified in
the same general area (fig 5.20D) within squares F5-57 (two large flakes, one of which is
a primary flake), F5-58 (a small thinning type flake), F5-66 (another probable adze
production flake) and F5-68 (a possible failed core or burin on a thick primary flake).
These artefacts spanned three spits, with two from spit 1, two from spit 2, and one from
spits 3, of the ‘transitional’ layer 18 (three flints) and clean sand 106 (two flints). Most,
however, (four of five) were retrieved from spits 1 and 2 and, as with the re-fitting
material, they could have lain within a narrower band just over 5cm thick.
Three outlying flakes manufactured from the same raw material, also likely to
relate to adze manufacture (they are all of similar form with divergent margins and
curved profiles), were identified up to several metres to the south-west, in squares F5-94
(fig 5.23 no 12), F6-24 and F6-7. One was recovered from context 18, and the other two
from clean sand 106, spanning spits 1, 4 and 5. Three adze sharpening flake fragments of
the same raw material, two of which re-fit (fig 5.23 nos 13 and 14) were retrieved from
31
square F6-13, within context 18, and from trial trench A located several metres to the
north-east. The locations of some of these artefacts (see fig 5.20H), which parallel those
of several flakes from Group B (the latter including one piece which re-fits onto two
other flakes from the main concentration), clearly suggest a common, possibly cultural
rather than taphonomic, origin, perhaps relating to maintenance activities, rather than to
in situ adze manufacture.
It is noteworthy that all three groups of adze manufacturing flakes are spatially
discrete, with only a minimal degree of overlap. Because of the form of the waste flakes
engendered (sometimes rendering them unsuitable for further use), or perhaps because of
delimiting cultural or social factors, none of them appear to have been retouched or
subsequently used in any way, with the exception of a large cortical flake from Group C
which has been crested, and from which two bladelets or burin spalls have subsequently
been detached. It is, however, possible that these distinct groups of manufacturing waste
represent only a residue of adze manufacture, and that the greater bulk of the debitage
engendered in any such activity may have been collected for disposal elsewhere.
Although the products of adze manufacture and maintenance are not uncommonly
reported from many Mesolithic sites, larger groups of re-fitting debitage are scarce, and
there is clearly some variation in production routines, as well as in raw material
procurement. Each of the three groups of adze manufacturing waste identified in Area 6
can be associated with sharpening flakes recovered from the same area, and three of four
of the latter were found in the same, or adjoining, metre squares.
(k) Discussion
Of crucial importance in any discussion of the Area 6 flintwork is the chronology of the
microliths represented, and their possible associations or likely contemporaneity with
hearth 161, which has been radiocarbon dated to 7580-7050 BC, a chronology coeval
with determinations made for the ‘pure’ ‘Horsham period’ site at Kettlebury 103 (Reynier
2002, 224). First should be emphasised the very small number of ‘Horsham’ points
recovered from Area 6 (only 1% of the microlith total). Of the three identified examples,
two were located close to the southern edge, in relative proximity to one another, whilst
the third example was located c5m further north. All three pieces were found in the
vicinity of other inversely retouched microliths including, for the northernmost example,
two inverse basally retouched points which may be coeval with ‘Horsham’ points
(Reynier 2005. 27, adduces the site at Beedings Wood as possible evidence of their
contemporaneity). Other pieces which may be of the same date include the two ‘curved
points’ noted above, an unfinished microlith which may be a failed ‘Horsham’ or inverse
basal point, a single isosceles triangle and one possibly related ‘intermediate’ form.
Coincident with the distribution of these pieces, however, are large numbers of straightbacked bladelets, a microlithic form hitherto regarded as characteristic of the early part of
the Late Mesolithic period in Surrey, as exemplified by the illustrated assemblage from
Kettlebury 59 (Ellaby1984, 64, fig 3.9), albeit there found in association with inversely
based points.
Taken as a whole, the microlith assemblage from Area 6 can be seen to have
affinities with potentially ‘Middle Mesolithic’ industries such as those published from
Rock Common in Sussex (Harding 2000), Flanchford Mill in Surrey (Ellaby 1985) and
‘Honey Hill’ type assemblages such as Two Mile Bottom in Suffolk (Reynier 2005, fig
32
2.12). All three of these sites contain varying proportions of straight-backed bladelets
together with oblique points (some of comparable outline and dimensions to the Area 6
examples), scalene triangles and convex-backed pieces usually attributed to the Later
Mesolithic. Both the Flanchford Mill surface collected and Rock Common excavated
assemblages included very small proportions of ‘Horsham’ points (six, or 1%, from a
total of 631, and two, or 4%, out of 47, respectively, compared to the figure of 1% for
Area 6). What we may be seeing here is evidence of chronological continuity or intensive
activity spanning a longer timescale than that traditionally envisaged for so-called ‘single
episode’ sites, with elements of both Early and Late microlith assemblage types,
including straight-backed forms. Similar collections of microliths characterise several
‘Middle Mesolithic’ occupation sites including Howick, Broom Hill and Mount Sandel,
which have been the subject of a recent comprehensive review (Waddington et al 2007,
203-224).
Evidence for such intensive activity at North Park Farm is provided by the higher
overall lithic totals in Area 6 (despite the loss of woodland soil deposits which accounted
for almost half of the flintwork recovered in Areas 1 and 4), a wider range and higher
incidence of microlith and other tool types and, in particular, greater technological
variation in the production of microliths across the whole area investigated. This apparent
technological diversification could be regarded as characteristic of the 8th millennium
BC and is probably related to climatic change and associated floral and faunal driving
forces such as those proposed by Reynier (2005, 123-7).
Rather than being viewed as residual components within an essentially Early Late
Mesolithic industry, therefore, the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage elements found in Area 6
may instead be regarded as further indicators of the complexity of microlith development
in the Middle Mesolithic period. The lithic material found here could accordingly be
viewed as representative of an overlapping phase between the Early and Late Mesolithic
periods, incorporating elements of both periods as suggested by Roger Ellaby (Ellaby
1985, 56; Ellaby 1987, 64).
An alternative explanation for the apparent dichotomy represented by microlith
types once considered to be chronologically exclusive in Area 6, namely that two
successive periods are represented, and that the area was occupied by different groups of
hunter-gatherers at different times, seems rather less likely given the paucity of ‘pure’
‘Horsham’ type assemblage elements identified here (assuming that the Kettlebury 103
type-site is truly representative of the period, when in fact the material recovered there which, incidentally, included one micro-scalene microlith of Late Mesolithic form – may
simply represent one brief occupational episode utilizing a specialised microlith
inventory related to a specific range of tasks or activities).
Whilst some aspects of the Horsham techno-complex typified by Kettlebury 103
can be seen to be present within Area 6, such as the proportions of double platform cores,
presence of some large microburins, comparable proportions of plunging pieces and the
presence of chert or ‘cherty flint’ (although the Kettlebury ‘flinty chert’ is described as
almost white; Reynier 2002, 216), others, such as large numbers of chamfered pieces and
isosceles triangle microliths, are clearly not.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that there is evidence of technological continuity
here in the form of microlith production and core reduction, as well as for specific
activities such as woodworking, across the area as a whole, all factors which would seem
33
to support the notion of a longer-term occupation area which may have extended from
some point within the latter half of the 8th millennium BC into the first half of the 7th
millennium BC.
Although there was abundant evidence for adze manufacture and maintenance, in
the form of large numbers of thinning flakes, with some re-fitting items, as well as many
adze sharpening flakes, only partial sequences appear to be represented. Even allowing
for possible losses resulting from the incorporation of some finds into subsequent treethrow hollows, significant quantities of debitage appear to be missing, and the re-fitting
of one flake spanning a distance of c5m hints at cultural factors influencing its dispersal.
Notable also is the distribution of re-fitting and probably associated adze
manufacturing waste products within a few square metres at the northern end of Area 6,
and its concentration within a narrow band of sandy sediments, perhaps only several
centimetres thick.
5.4.7 Area 7 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18)
(a) Summary
Area 7 consisted of two metre squares located c10m east of Area 6, just south-west of
Area 10 on the northern flank of the valley head depression. Flintwork of probable
Mesolithic date, including high proportions of blade debitage, was recovered, together
with a single microlith of straight-backed bladelet form.
(b, c) Sampling and contexts
Square H4-92 was sampled through three 5cm spits and square H5-2 through four spits.
Spit 1 in both squares consisted of vestiges of woodland soil 36, together with beige/buff
‘transitional’ layer 159. Spits 2-4 comprised clean pale buff layer 121. No bulk samples
were taken in either square.
(d) Quantification
130 flint artefacts were recovered (0.4% of the North Park Farm 2005 total), with 75
from H4-92 and 55 from HF-2. Only two chips were identified, representing 1.5% of the
total recovered here.
(e) Distribution
In both squares, spit 1 was the most productive, yielding a combined total of 55 worked
flints or 43% of the overall total. The lowest spit excavated was the least productive,
although spit 3 produced more material for the two squares combined.
(f) Raw material and condition
The flintwork is not of a uniform hue, with mottled grey, olive, tan/honey coloured and
very dark grey/black pieces present in varying numbers. Cortex is off-white and coarse.
The material is nearly all fresh, and the absence of any edge modified pieces
suggests little post-depositional damage, although blade and flake fragments are well
represented, forming 76.5% of the total lithic assemblage. Because of the loss of most of
the woodland soil from the sampled squares, it is not possible to ascribe these high
fragmentation rates with any confidence to either cultural or post-depositional processes,
but similarly high proportions of broken artefacts are not uncommon on Mesolithic sites,
34
eg Kettlebury 103, where fragments comprised 88% of the total (Reynier 2002, 225) and
Bermondsey, where broken blades accounted for almost 70% of all blades (Cotton 2002,
73).
Eleven burnt worked flints were also recovered, representing 7.9% of the lithic
total from Area 7.
(g) Primary technology
Blade and blade fragments, with eight and 52 pieces, constituting 6.2% and 40% of the
total lithic assemblage respectively, are a significant component of the assemblage.
Bladelet forms are especially prominent, suggesting a Mesolithic industry. Soft hammer
removals are indicated by generally diffuse bulbs of percussion and lipped butts.
Although no cores were recovered, among the three rejuvenators is a partially crested
plunging blade from an opposed platform core which is clearly of Mesolithic date.
(h) Secondary technology
One microlith of straight-backed bladelet type was recovered from square H4-92. This
probably dates to the early part of the Late Mesolithic (from the early 7th millennium cal
BC).
Only three modified pieces were present: a scraper, a notched piece and a serrated
blade.
(i) Compositional and distributional variability
Because of the limited area investigated here, few meaningful remarks can be made with
regard to gross compositional and distributional variability in Area 7, although most
blades were recovered from square H5-2 and all three core dressings were found in
square H4-92.
Burnt worked flints were present in very small numbers throughout all sampled
spits and across both sampled squares.
(j) Re-fitting
No re-fits have been identified, although several pieces appear to originate from the same
cores.
(k) Discussion
Area 7 demonstrates a continuation of Mesolithic activity across the central portion of the
valley depression, and extends the known range of straight-backed bladelet distribution at
North Park Farm.
5.4.8 Area 8 (tables 5.1-13; figs 5.1-5.17)
(a) Summary
Eleven metre squares were sampled beyond the limit of the woodland soil at the northern
end of the valley head depression. A number of diagnostic Mesolithic artefacts were
recovered, including three microliths, one microburin and an adze perform, although the
area contained the lowest proportion of blades and blade fragments recovered in any of
the areas investigated in 2005. Two artefacts dating to the Early Bronze Age period, a
35
barbed-and-tanged arrowhead and a plano-convex knife, were recovered from Area 8 and
the surrounding area.
(b, c) Sampling and contexts
A series of single 5cm spits were excavated through a predominantly mid grey/beige sand
variant of ‘transitional’ layer 18. Some, but not all, of these were numbered as spit 1, but
no context numbers were assigned to any of the excavated samples.
No bulk sampling was undertaken, a fact that accounts for the very low number of
chips recovered (four, or 1.6% of the flint total).
(d) Quantification
246 lithic artefacts, including four chips, were collected from single 5cm spits excavated
across 11 metre squares.
(e) Distribution
Metre square densities varied from 5 to 39. The highest totals were recovered from the
north-eastern side of Area 8, including squares J2-100 and J3-10.
(f) Raw material
With the exception of three olive coloured pieces which may be intrusive or originate
from within the woodland soil, all of the flintwork was mid to dark grey, with darker or
lighter mottling. Cortex was thick, off-white to pale buff, and coarse in texture.
Finds were generally quite fresh, but a significant proportion (117 pieces, or 45.9% of the
excavated total) had been burnt, resulting in frequent comminution. Despite the resulting
high incidence of heat-induced fragmentation, flake and blade fragments account for only
58.2% of all lithics, a figure by no means untypical of North Park Farm.
(g) Primary technology
Mean debitage weight is 5.12g; despite the likely effect of comminution, this is one of the
highest values recorded.
Although flakes and fragments constitute 61.8% and blades/blade fragments only
22% of the total flintwork from Area 8, all four cores found here are blade types, and all
four exhibit one or more bladelet scars. Whilst it is, therefore, possible that some of the
debitage is of post-Mesolithic date, the low proportions of blades may be due in part to
greater fragmentation occasioned by intensive burning here.
The ten core dressings collected in Area 8 include one plunging blade retaining
the ‘heel’ of its parent opposed platform bladelet core, which is almost certainly of
Mesolithic date.
(h) Secondary technology
Two of the three microliths recovered are of straight-backed bladelet type, the other being
unclassified. Modified pieces include an adze perform (fig 5.24 no 1) which, in the
absence of many thinning flakes here, suggests its importation after preliminary working
at or close to source. There are also three notches, a burin, one adze sharpening flake, a
scraper and one serrate. The last two are not necessarily of Mesolithic date, but the adze
36
preform, sharpener and burin conform to well-established Mesolithic types. The only
other tool debitage recovered consists of a ‘typical’ proximal right notched microburin.
(i) Compositional and distributional variability
No significant gross lithic distributional variability is apparent from the plotted totals,
apart from slightly lower lithic counts at the northern end of Area 8 in squares J2-89, J290 and J2-99. Diagnostic Mesolithic finds were recovered from both the northern and
southern ends.
(j) Re-fitting
No re-fits were identified, and the large numbers of burnt and comminuted pieces are
likely to have compromised any potential re-fitting work. Due to the extent of fire
damage, much of the flintwork is similar in appearance.
(k) Discussion
Notwithstanding the presence in Area 8 of post-Mesolithic artefacts (including a planoconvex knife fragment that, apart from a lateral snap fracture, is slightly abraded and has
some edge modification which may be post-depositional) and a low proportion of blade
debitage, there is no pressing reason not to assume that the majority of the flintwork
recovered is of Mesolithic date. The straight-backed bladelets recovered here extend the
known distribution of these forms (which are probably predominantly of Middle to Late
Mesolithic date) across the valley head depression.
High proportions of burnt lithics within Area 8 are comparable to similar samples
recovered from the valley flanks, eg in Areas 2, 3 and test pit A5, in marked contrast to
the significantly low proportions evident along the valley floor in Area 1 and at the
western end of trial trench A. Likewise, the high mean debitage weight of 5.12g is
comparable to the other recorded values for lithics situated away from the valley floor.
5.4.9 Area 9 (tables 5.1-13; figs 5.1-5.17; fig 5.39)
(a) Summary
Mesolithic artefacts were recovered from test pits towards the valley floor at its eastern
end, immediately north of trial trench A, and also from a block of eight metre squares
immediately surrounding a hearth radiocarbon dated to 6430-6240 BC. The microlith
inventory comprises mainly straight-backed bladelets and narrow lanceolate forms, with
smaller numbers of scalene triangles and two pieces with inverse retouch (including one
inverse basally retouched point). Microlith production is implied by the recovery of 18
microburins and Krukowski pieces, seemingly focussed around the hearth. Higher
concentrations of lithic material also suggest that the hearth may have served as a focus
for knapping activity. A small number of formally retouched and edge modified pieces
indicate a range of processing tasks.
(b, c) Sampling and contexts
Forty-three metre squares were sampled in the eastern half of hundred metre square I5.
Most comprised single 5cm spits of woodland soil 36 excavated with mattock and shovel
without any sieving, but seven were sampled more intensively with up to four more spits
of grey sands, although no context numbers were assigned. Eight squares were sampled
37
with up to ten 5cm spits of cream/buff natural sand 121 and hearth 122 en bloc in the
south-eastern corner of hundred metre square I5 and the north-eastern corner of hundred
metre square I6 (although the preliminary site report states that the first and sometimes
the second spits were of ‘intermediate’ ‘dirtier’ buff/pale grey sand, the remainder
comprising clean buff sand).
Thirty-five metre squares were bulk sampled, with 24 soil samples taken from the
western half of Area 9 and 27 more from the south-eastern block, although samples were
not taken from every square here. A single sample was taken from tree-throw hollow 89.
All of the south-eastern samples have been fully processed for lithic material (22
out of 51 samples altogether), but none of the western squares.
For the purposes of this report, in addition to a general Area 9 survey, the two
western and south-eastern portions have been treated separately and designated Area 9W
and Area 9SE respectively. All original context numbering has been retained except
insofar as this has had to be inferred for alternate squares within the south-eastern block
(Area 9SE).
(d) Quantification
1619 lithic artefacts and 964 chips have been identified from Area 9, constituting 5.3% of
the North Park Farm 2005 excavated total. Excluding chips, the flintwork represents
4.5% of the excavated total. 1051 artefacts and 836 chips were recovered from Area 9SE
(including hearth 122).
(e) Gross lithic compositional and distributional variability
Most of the western area (Area 9W) metre square hand excavated samples of the
woodland soil produced only single figure flint totals. Metre square totals from the more
intensively sampled squares (exluding chips) range from 14 in square I5-25 to 99 in
square I5-21.
Within the south-eastern block of squares (Area 9SE), metre square totals
(excluding chips) ranged from 74 in square I6-19 to 146 in square I5-100.
Contoured distribution of all lithics (fig 5.39) suggests a concentration of material
in the immediate vicinity of hearth 122. Just over half of the flintwork collected can be
seen to derive from context 121 (mainly ‘clean’ grey sands, but including some
‘transitional’ layer material).
In Area 9W, woodland soil 36 formed 41.3% of the collected total, excluding
chips.
In Area 9SE, layer 121 constituted 81.6% of all flintwork excluding chips, with
the various tree-throw hollows making up a further 10.6%. Throughout this layer, lithic
totals did not diminish consistently with depth, exhibiting a slight rise and fall between
spits 1 and 4, and this pattern was even more marked within some individual metre
squares such as I5-99 amd I5-100, where the spit totals fluctuated for up to eight spits,
indicating the disruptive influences of post-depositional processes.
(f) Raw material
The raw material is predominantly grey (often mottled), from pale through to very dark,
almost black, although there are some light tan, greenish-grey and semi-translucent
pieces. Whilst most of the flintwork is fresh, there is a higher proportion of slightly
38
abraded or surface modified pieces than in most other excavated areas; some, but by no
means all, of this derives from the woodland soil samples collected in the western half.
8.3% of the lithics are burnt, and 59.5% of the total assemblage (excluding chips)
is made up of broken flakes and blades. Neither proportion is especially high, although
the number of broken pieces is slightly larger than in most of the more intensively
sampled areas, with the exception of Area 11.
(g) Primary technology
Mean debitage weight is 1.3g. Where bulk samples have been fully processed, ie in Area
9SE, chips constitute 67% of all flintwork, a figure which suggests that some knapping is
likely to have taken place here.
Only 26.9% of the lithic assemblage in Area 9 is composed of blades and blade
fragments. This, together with Area 11, represents one of the smallest proportions among
the North Park Farm assemblages, and the percentage of complete blades, at 4.1%, is the
lowest of any of the sampled areas. This lower incidence of blades in Area 9 is also
reflected in the proportion of classified flake cores (41%, with 59% of all cores classified
as blade types), although one or more bladelet scars are evident on 72.2% of the cores
identified here. Five blade cores are of characteristic Mesolithic shape, with three of
pyramidal form and two cylindrical types, but there are also two cube-shaped flake cores,
and four keeled types in all, which are almost certainly of Neolithic date (cf Holgate
2004, 26). Incipient cones of percussion, usually taken as evidence of hard hammer
mishits, are more frequent in the Area 9 core assemblage (22.2% of the total), but it is
worth noting that this feature has also been observed on some typical Mesolithic blade
cores from North Park Farm. Hinge and step terminations are a recurring feature on 17 of
the 22 cores represented (94.1% of the total sample), and the mean core weight is 77.2g;
both values are higher than in any other sampled area. Taken together, these aspects of
core reduction (albeit confined to the final stages of working), clearly indicate the
presence of some later, probably Neolithic flinworking waste in Area 9, but it should be
noted that four of the five cores recovered from the south-eastern area around hearth 122
are of blade type, with single examples each of pyramidal and cylindrical form.
Core dressings represent 1.8% of the total lithic assemblage in Area 9.
Characteristic Mesolithic forms include two bidirectional and four unidirectional crested
pieces, and three plunging blades. The high proportion of partial platform renewals
(41.4%, with 12 examples) may be a reflection of the high percentage of flake cores in
this area, as some pieces could simply be by-products of a core rotational reduction
strategy usually associated with cube- shaped flake cores of Neolithic date. Careful
platform preparation is indicated by the presence of edge abrasion on eight core dressings
(27.6% of all rejuvenators) and 11 cores (50% of the total).
(h) Secondary technology
One hundred and forty-two modified pieces and spalls were recovered from Area 9,
representing 8.8% of the flintwork total. Typical Mesolithic forms are present in small
quantitites, including two adzes, two adze sharpening flakes, three burins and four
truncations.
Of the eight scrapers and nine serrates (one example illustrated; fig 5.26 no 14),
some at least could be Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. The proportion of edge modified
39
pieces present (at 52.8% of all classified ‘tool’ forms and spalls) is similar to that in most
other areas.
No tool debitage, with the exception of 18 microburins and two Krukowski
pieces, has been identified. Of the classified microburins (which represent 1.2% of all
quantified flintwork), 15 are proximal types, with one distal and one possible double
microburin. Five could be classed as mishits, and most have been characteristically
notched on the right side, although two proximal examples have been notched on the left,
and the distal microburin has been notched on the right (as viewed in most illustrations).
These ‘atypical’ pieces, which were all recovered in the vicinity of hearth 122, represent
16.7% of the microlith population in Area 9, and suggest some technological affinity with
Area 6, relating to the production of right lateralised microliths, 7 of which were
identified in Area 9.
The predominant microlith type identified here (with 13 examples, or 35% of all
microliths) is of straight-backed bladelet form, and it is likely that some of the 18
unclassified pieces are also fragments of the same type. At least one narrow lanceolate
microlith could be classed as a ‘needle point’. In addition, there are three scalene
triangles and two inversely retouched microliths. As a group, these pieces are most
closely comparable to the so-called ‘Early Pioneering’ microlith assemblage of probable
Late Mesolithic date recovered from Kettlebury 53 (Ellaby 1987, 64), and, if truly
associated with hearth 122 (radiocarbon dated to 6430-6240 BC), would tend to confirm
the 7th millennium dating proposed for assemblages of this type.
(i) Compositional and distributional variability
The ‘woodland soil’ in Area 9, despite the crude sampling methodology generally
adopted, nevertheless produced nine microliths, three microburins, an adze and an adze
sharpening flake.
Overall lithic densities around hearth 122 show little horizontal differentiation.
The quantified vertical variation in lithic totals has been noted above; this ‘stepped’
distribution is even more pronounced in Area 11, where there seems to have been a
slightly greater accumulation of flint-bearing sands, and must surely relate to formation
processes affecting this deepest part of the valley head depression infill, since it is not
apparent, or apparent to the same extent, in any other area.
With regard to artefact distribution, patterning is evident in the concentration of
microburins around hearth 122. This pattern is also apparent, to varying degrees, in Areas
1, 2, 6 and 10, where microburin clusters are often located on the fringes of lithic
concentrations or putative hearths.
One other aspect of the Area 9 flintwork assemblage meriting discussion relates to
the generally small size of the debitage present. The absence of any large flakes and
blades, and a likely over-representation of the smaller debitage fraction, is suspected to
be a product of the same, or analogous, formation processes affecting lithic spit densities
noted above.
(j) Re-fitting
No re-fitting artefacts have been identified in Area 9.
(k) Discussion
40
The flintwork from Area 9, especially in the south-eastern corner, produced evidence of
compositional and distributional variability in the form of a volumetric (size-related) bias
amongst the debitage, which is probably related to post-depositional factors including
excavation. Some Neolithic flintwork, mostly in the form of a few cores and an
unquantifiable proportion of the debitage, is present, mostly within the western half of the
sampled area.
A microlith industry, comprising straight-backed bladelets, narrow lanceolates,
and scalene triangles, is believed to be contemporary with a hearth radiocarbon dated to
the second half of the 7th millennium BC.
It seems likely that the hearth served as a focus for knapping activity and
microlith production. If accurate, this association would provide some confirmation of
Ellaby’s proposed dating for the ‘Early Pioneering’ phase of the Late Mesolithic period
in Surrey.
5.4.10 Area 10 (tables 5.1-14; figs 5.1-5.18 and 5.39)
(a) Summary
Area 10, located on the northern flank of the valley depression, was the largest of the
areas investigated, encompassing 143 metre squares. Evidence of Mesolithic activity was
forthcoming across the whole area. Primarily this consisted of flintworking evidence in
the form of cores and debitage, but also of microlith discard and production, with
microburins well represented. A range of other Mesolithic tool types and spalls has also
been identified, including burins, burin spalls, truncations and adze sharpening flakes.
Contoured distribution plots of all lithics indicate one major concentration around squares
J4-43 and J4-53 in the eastern half of the area investigated and part of another just to the
south-east. Lesser concentrations are indicated around hearth 129 at the northern end, one
other (139) in the north-western corner and, less certainly, close to hearth 179 which has
produced a radiocarbon determination of Saxon date.
Seemingly discrete or overlapping microlith distributions, although dispersed,
suggest at least four main phases of activity spanning the ‘Middle’ Mesolithic ‘Horsham’
period, the ‘Early Pioneering’ and ‘geometric’ phases of the Late Mesolithic, and the
very latest Surrey Mesolithic typified by tanged points. Hearth 139 may be associated
with one discrete group of scalene triangles, and hearth 124, rather tentatively, with
straight-backed bladelets. 4-sided microliths appear to be centred on the principal lithic
concentration.
A transverse arrowhead and a possible leaf arrowhead fragment, as well as a
number of characteristic flake cores, provide evidence of Neolithic and later activity,
which is more certainly indicated by the presence of four features dated to the Bronze
Age by associated ceramic finds.
(b, c) Sampling and contexts
One hundred and forty-three metre squares were sampled, with up to seven 5cm spits
spanning a variety of context types. These included (with overall lithic percentages
excluding chips): layers (92.8%); miscellaneous features (2.8%); layer/hearth feature
combinations (1.7%); hearths (2%); and unprovenanced contexts (0.7%).
Layer contexts comprised three main deposits: ‘humic sand’ 36 (12.6% of all
lithics excluding chips), ‘transitional’ sand layer 159 (20.6%); and natural cream/buff
41
sand 121 (63.7%). Mixed layer contexts 36/121 and 121/159 account for 1.3% and 1.5%
respectively of the total collection, and variant natural layers 153, 166 and 177 another
0.5%.
Thirty metre squares were bulk sampled, producing 93 individual soil samples. Of
these, only one has been fully sorted down to chip size (less than or equal to 10mm) lithic
debitage.
(d) Quantification
14,059 items of flintwork and 1634 chips have been quantified, constituting 39% of the
North Park Farm 2005 lithics, excluding chips, and 32% of all lithic material including
chips.
(e) Distribution
Metre square lithic densities excluding chips range from 15 to 362 (discounting square
J4-58, which was compromised by metre square sample B5 of the 2002 evaluation). A
contoured overall lithic density plot (fig 5.39) indicates one major, and parts of up to four
lesser, concentrations. The largest concentration is located in the central southern part of
Area 10 around squares J4-43 and J4-53. Part of a similar concentration is situated c1-2m
to the south-east. Lesser concentrations appear to be centred on hearths 124, 139 and 141
along the northern edge of the excavated area and, possibly, in the vicinities of hearth 146
and hearth 147 close to the eastern edge, as well as hearth 126/179 further west.
Although the humic soil 36, accounts for 12.6% of the material collected in Area
10, it should be stated that this was irregularly and intermittently sampled across the
whole area (with regard to both depth and extent), eg two squares produced two spits, but
in many others the volumes of spit material removed are likely to have varied
considerably. Significant quantities of Mesolithic material were nevertheless present
within the woodland soil, including higher proportions of cores, irregular waste and core
dressings than in underlying ‘layers’ 159 and 121, a phenomenon noted elsewhere in eg
Areas 4 and 6.
These sampling biases notwithstanding, the apparent concentrations in overall
lithic densities are also evident in contoured total lithic distributions for Area 10
excluding layer 36 as well as for layer 121 alone, albeit with subtle modifications in
relation to their extent; one concentration in the vicinity of hearth 141, for instance, is no
longer apparent in the 121 lithic density plot, and the more extensive cluster located
north-east of Late Bronze Age feature 127/143 becomes more fragmented when the total
lithic distribution for context 121 is viewed in isolation.
Owing to the variable character of spit deposits in Area 10, and an absence of true
chip proportions, examination of the vertical distribution of lithic artefacts has only been
attempted for one metre square sample, J4-54. Most artefacts were present in spit 1 (layer
159), with 44.1% of the total recovered. Although spit totals diminish thereafter, there is
a slight increase in spit 4, and spit 5 still contained 12.3% of the overall lithic totals
recovered.
(f) Raw material
The flintwork from Area 10 is predominantly mottled grey (pale to dark grey), but with
smaller proportions of light tan and honey-coloured material. Condition is variable,
42
ranging from mint in square J4-77 (which is likely to represent part of a single knapping
episode), to slightly weathered (usually, but not invariably, within layer 36).
Cortex is predominantly off-white and coarse, and often thick.
Breakage rates are similar to most other sampled areas, with 59.1% of the lithic
total represented by blade and flake fragments.
13.6% of all flintwork is burnt.
(g) Primary technology
Flakes (with 3539 items or 25.2%), and fragments (4823 pieces or 34.3%) together make
up 59.5% of the total flint collected from Area 10. Total complete blade proportions are
low, at 5.3% of all recovered flintwork. Area 10 is the only sampled area with a sizable
core assemblage in which blade cores (one three platformed example illustrated, fig 5.34
no 2) do not outnumber flake cores, with 60 examples of each, and the incidence of
bladelet scars on cores, at 59% of the total, is the lowest recorded at North Park Farm.
Evidence of platform edge abrasion was only noted on 34.4% of cores. A proportion of
the Area 10 core assemblage is certainly of Neolithic or later date, including five typical
cube-shaped forms, seven keeled and two tortoise types.
Core dressings, which form 1.7% of all excavated flintwork, are present in the
form of crested pieces, core tablets, partial platform rejuvenation flakes (fig 5.29 no 14),
face renewals (flancs de nucleus; fig 5.29 no 16) and plunging pieces (fig 5.29 no 10).
Chip proportions, at 10.4% of all lithics, are clearly not an accurate representation
of microdebitage numbers in Area 10. Proportions in the only comprehensively sorted
layer context bulk sample residue (from square J4-54) are, however, comparable (at 82%
of the lithic sample) to other North Park Farm percentages, and it seems certain that some
knapping activity did take place in Area 10.
(h) Secondary technology
Five hundred and seventy-five modified pieces and spalls (4.1% of all quantified
flintwork) were recovered in Area 10. Most classified tool forms are represented,
although edge modified pieces (53.3% of the modified total) doubtless include a
proportion of post-depositionally induced damaged pieces.
Diagnostic Mesolithic forms include an adze fragment reworked as a bladelet core
(fig 5.24 no 5), nine burins (1.6%), two chamfered pieces (0.4%; one illustrated fig 5.26
no 16), and 19 truncations (3.4%; one concave example and a piercer formed on a
truncation illustrated in fig 5.26 nos 6 and 8). Only 21 scrapers (3.7%) are present, and
some of the larger examples may be of Neolithic date. Other post-Mesolithic artefacts
include a broken transverse arrowhead and a barbed and tanged arrowhead.
Microliths, with 346 examples (or 2.5% of the lithic total from Area 10), are,
characteristically for North Park Farm, the most numerous retouched form identified. As
with most other sampled areas, straight-backed bladelets are well represented (80 pieces,
or 24% of the microlith total), but there are higher than normal proportions of scalene
triangles (32 examples or 9%), 4-sided microliths (19 or 6%), hollow based (five or 1%)
and tanged point (seven or 1%) forms. Obliquely blunted microliths, with 30 examples,
constitute 9%, and unclassified forms (139) make up a further 41% of the microlith total.
Distribution of the various types is, seemingly, restricted to some extent, suggesting that
they may once have defined spatially limited single-period assemblages (see (i) below).
43
Two hundred and forty-two microliths (71%) are broken and 51 (15%) are burnt.
The proportion of burnt microliths at North Park Farm is generally higher than for any
other lithic artefact category.
Tool debitage is represented by two burin spalls and one notch spall (fig 5.26 no
21 and no 20), two possible scraper retouch flakes, and 39 adze sharpening flakes (6.9%
of the modified and spall total).
There are in addition 157 microburins (1.1% of the total lithic assemblage) and
one lamelle a cran (fig 5.30 no 11). The microburins include 117 proximal (76.3% of the
total, 30 distal (19%) and four double types (3%), of which 39 or 26.6% could be classed
as mishits or ‘notch and snap’ forms (one example illustrated; fig 5.30 no 4). Microburin
breakage rates are quite high, with 31 examples (20.9% of the microburin total), and
there are seven burnt pieces (4.7%).
Additional evidence of microlith production is provided by seven Krukowski
pieces (one illustrated; fig 5.30 no 15) and an unfinished microlith of probable tanged
point form from square J4-43 (fig 5.30 no 14).
(i) Compositional and distributional variability
The coincident distribution of lithic artefacts is apparent, to some degree, in the two
largest clusters, with the highest densities of microliths, microburins, cores and core
dressings.
As in some other areas, adze sharpening flakes are generally located on the
periphery of the main lithic clusters.
Distal microburins appear to be concentrated in two groups towards the southern
edge of the area, centred on the principal lithic clusters there and also around hearth
126/179.
Straight-backed bladelet microliths are present across most of Area 10, although
possibly in two separate groups, with a minor cluster around hearth 124. The distribution
of oblique points and scalene triangles is rather intermittent, but there is one
concentration of seven scalenes in the north-eastern corner, within and around hearth 141.
4-sided microliths are largely focussed on the main lithic scatter, with another small
group of three situated just south of hearth 126/179.
Overlapping clusters of chronologically distinct microlith types in the northeastern corner of Area 10 are reflected in one group of Horsham points and five isosceles
triangles likely to date to the Middle Mesolithic period (c8200-7000 BC), and a rather
loosely defined cluster of seven tanged points (including one unfinished piece) probably
dating to the latest Surrey Mesolithic (5th millennium BC).
(j) Re-fitting
Several pairs of re-fits have been identified, and most of the material from squares J476/77 appears to derive from a single knapping episode. Much of the flintwork from the
principal flint cluster centred on square J4-43 is markedly similar in appearance.
(k) Discussion
Of all the areas investigated at North Park Farm, Area 10 seems to offer the best evidence
for the superimposition of discrete chronological episodes, largely due to the restricted
distributions of relatively securely dated microlith groups. Given their rather vague
44
parameters, however, it seems fruitless to attempt any definition of associated knapping
groups, especially given the uncertainty with regard to causal factors governing microlith
loss and discard. The comparable forms of many 4-sided pieces may be attributable to
occasional losses or the deliberate discard of a composite tool on a single occasion, or to
the discard of several elements from multiple composite tools on different occasions, but
within a limited time-frame.
Although lithic concentrations appear to relate to some of the hearths, or possible
hearths, identified in Area 10, such as 124, 147 (?) and 126/179, the principal cluster
centred on squares J4-43 and J4-53 does not relate to any surviving hearth (unless the
increased number of burnt worked flint artefacts is a true indication of the former
presence of one here).
Despite the possibility that most of the hearths may be Mesolithic, the only
radiocarbon date obtained so far (for hearth 126/179) has produced a determination of
Saxon age (440-620 cal AD).
Two later prehistoric arrowheads have been identified in Area 10, and higher
proportions of flake cores, including two diagnostic Late Neolithic types, across the
whole area might suggest a higher degree of later contamination than in any of the other
investigated areas. Nevertheless, some of the flake cores are likely to be Mesolithic (the
very late, 5th millennium BC, site of Charlwood produced almost exclusively flake types;
Ellaby 2004, 20). There is no overt distinction in the distribution of flake or blade cores
across Area 10, however, which might relate to chronologically distinct flint knapping
episodes.
Another issue of some concern regards the extent of vertical truncation of
Mesolithic flintwork here, and the consequent depletion of lithic and specific artefact
category totals, especially in view of the fact that the very limited samples of woodland
soil 36 taken here produced 42 microliths and 19 microburins. Wherever the woodland
soil was sampled at North Park Farm, larger artefacts such as cores, core dressings,
irregular waste chunks and hammerstones were more abundant than in the underlying
deposits and, conversely, the smaller lithic retouched and debitage fraction such as
microliths and chips, was proportionately more frequent in the ‘transitional’ layer and
clean sands. Consequently, the material collected in Area 10 can hardly be construed as
truly representational of the original lithic scatters, and elements relating to the initial
stages of core reduction including large primary flakes and chunks are clearly
underrepresented.
Despite these caveats and the apparent mixing of originally discrete knapping
episodes in Area 10, some loose chronological phasing can be attempted based on the
microlith distributions here. An area of Middle Mesolithic activity is indicated in the
north-eastern corner by finds of ‘Horsham’ points, isosceles triangles and one or two
small oblique points with additional retouch (cf Ellaby 1985, 55). This assemblage
conforms more closely to the ‘classic Horsham’ assemblage type of Kettlebury 103, and
may be earlier in date than the postulated ‘intermediate’ ‘Horsham’ and straight-backed
bladelet assemblage present in Area 6, although there are two ‘outlier’ Horsham points in
squares I4-29 and I4-58.
Probably representative of the early part of the Late Mesolithic are two clusters of
straight-backed bladelets, possibly focussing on hearth 124 at the northern end of the area
and hearth 126/179 (if this is of Mesolithic date) towards the southern edge.
45
Perhaps more closely associated with the main lithic cluster in and around squares
J4-43 and J4-54 is a cluster of 4-sided microliths, although one secondary group of three
is also present in squares J4-76 and J4-67. The increased density of distal microburins
here is also likely to relate to the same period, given their similar distributions.
Likely to be representative of the very latest Surrey Mesolithic period are a
loosely defined group of seven tanged points and one unfinished example (with two
isolated outliers), also located in the north-eastern corner and overlapping to some extent
with the ‘Horsham’ points, isosceles triangles and 4-sided microlith distributions. One
noteworthy characteristic of the North Park Farm tanged points is the total absence of
inverse retouch so typical of the Charlwood examples; nor do they appear to be
associated distributionally in Area 10 with micro-scalene triangles which were found in
association with tanged points at Charlwood.
5.4.11 Area 11 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-18 and 5.39)
(a) Summary
Area 11, located towards the eastern end of the valley floor, comprised nine one metre
square samples situated immediately south of a multi-phase ‘fire pit’ of probable Late
Mesolithic date (several conflicting radiocarbon dates have been obtained spanning the
period 7460-7170 BC to 7060-6690 BC). Contoured distribution plots provide some
slight indications that the ‘fire pit’ may have served as the focus for knapping and other
related activities such as microlith production. The microlith inventory consists
principally of narrow straight-backed bladelets and 4-sided pieces.
(b) Sampling
Nine single metre squares were sampled spanning up to 16 5cm spits and a variety of
context types. The latter included layers, a layer/hollow context, two tree-throw hollows,
‘fire-pit’ 160, hearth 173, seven ‘grey cones’ associated with the ‘fire-pit’ complex, and a
few unnumbered contexts. 119 bulk environmental samples were taken from eight metre
squares, of which only one (representing less than 1% of the total) has been fully
processed down to microdebitage level.
(c) Contexts
Sampled layers included a remnant, in two metre squares, of woodland soil 36, a thin
beige/buff ‘transitional’ soil layer 174, and cream/buff natural sands 121. A few worked
flints have been ascribed to ‘clean sand’ layer 182, presumably a variant of 121. There is
one tree-throw hollow, 164/174. Seven ‘grey cones’ were identified in Area 11: contexts
167, 169, 175, 176, 180 181 183 and 185. Flintwork was also collected from ‘fire-pit’
160, hearth 173, tree-throw hollows 163 and 164, and two unnumbered contexts
comprising collapsed material surrounding square J6-55, and the rather equivocally
labelled ‘J6-44-46’.
(d) Quantification
Area 11 produced 2545 lithic artefacts with maximum linear dimensions greater than
10mm, or 7.1% of the North Park Farm 2005 worked flint total, and 704 chips.
(e) Distribution
46
Because of the effect of test pit A11 from the 2002 evaluation in reducing lithic totals for
two of the squares in Area 11, density variations must be treated with caution. Lithic
counts range from 14 in square J6-43 to 307 in J6-66, although only layer 36 was
sampled in J6-43. Overall, these totals are approximately twice those of comparably
sampled squares within Area 9 which occupied a similar topographic location. There
would appear to be a slight fall-off in lithic totals at the eastern end of Area 11 in squares
J6-57 and J6-67.
One thousand seven hundred and forty-three worked flints (68.5% of the total
excluding chips) were collected from layers, and a further 550 (21.6%) from so-called
‘grey cones’. 75.3% of the layer total, or 1312 lithic artefacts, were recovered from
‘natural’ sand 121, and 22.9% from the ‘transitional’ layer 174. The fact that only 22
artefacts, constituting 1.3% of the Area 11 layer total, were collected from the woodland
soil 36 is simply due to the machined removal of this deposit prior to sampling.
73.5% of the ‘cone’ total of 405 worked flints can be attributed to context 175.
94.6% of the tree-throw hollow total (53 pieces) was derived from context 164.
(f) Raw material
Although much of the flintwork from Area 11 is predominantly grey in colour (very pale
to dark grey), there are in addition small quantities of light to dark tan hued artefacts.
Cortex is, typically, white to off-white and coarse in texture, although not noticeably
weathered, suggesting a source in primary or secondary chalk deposits.
Most of the flintwork is in good condition, but some finds appear to have been
subject to a slight degree of weathering, characterised by varying proportions of surface
gloss (patination sensu strictu; cf Reynier 2005, 132), or rather dull surfaces.
64.7% of the Area 11 flintwork total is composed of flake and blade fragments.
This is the highest proportion of fragmentary debitage recovered from any of the area
excavations at North Park Farm and, together with the large number of edge modified
pieces collected (61) and variable condition of the artefacts, is probably indicative of
significant levels of post-depositional modification.
Five hundred and twenty-four artefacts (13.6% of the overall total) are burnt, a
seemingly low proportion given the number of hearth-related contexts present.
(g) Primary technology
Blade and blade fragments together, with 632 pieces, constitute 24.8% of the overall
lithic collection, a figure which is one of the lowest among the North Park Farm
assemblages, but still indicative of Mesolithic blade production, when compared to the
much lower figure of 12.4% of all flints recovered from the ‘latest’ Mesolithic pits at
Charlwood and the rather higher figure of 35% from ‘local’ Early Mesolithic and
Horsham industries (Ellaby 2004, 20).
Only eight cores were recovered in Area 11, representing 0.4% of the overall
lithic total, but these included six blade types (mainly double platformed), five with
evidence of platform edge abrasion indicating their careful preparation prior to flaking.
Crested and plunging pieces, with two examples each, constitute only 12.7% of
the core dressings total, and the clear preponderance of flake rejuvenators is indicated
further by the much larger number of core tablets, partial platform and core face renewal
flakes, which together form 84.8% of all dressings. A high proportion of rejuvenators
47
(42.4%) exhibit evidence of platform edge abrasion, so core reduction was still carefully
managed, albeit perhaps geared more to the production of flakes.
Chip proportions for the only fully processed environmental bulk sample are high,
forming 68% of all lithics, a figure indicative of in situ knapping activity.
(h) Secondary technology
Modified pieces and spalls (excluding microliths and microburins) from Area 11
comprise 5.3% of all lithics excluding chips. In addition to 68 miscellaneous edge
modified pieces, there are small numbers of burins (4), core burins (2), notches (14; one
example illustrated in fig 5.26 no 19), piercers (5), scrapers (6, including two ‘core
scrapers’), serrates (4) and truncations (5), with one denticulate. Overall proportions are
comparable to the other sampled areas, although piercers (at 3.7% of the modified and
spall total) are comparatively well represented for such a small area (one additional
example was recovered in 2002 from square B1, located c3m west of the ‘fire pit’).
Tool debitage is represented by three adze sharpening flakes, two burin spalls, and
two possible scraper sharpening flakes.
Microlith proportions in Area 11 are second only to Area 3, with 3.4% of all
lithics, constituting 10.5% of the overall North Park Farm total. The main type identified
is of straight-backed bladelet form (37 examples, or 43% of all microliths from Area 11),
most of which are very narrow and would probably be classed as ‘rods’ by some
specialists. There are ten 4-sided microliths (11%). The latter vary much both in size and
outline, and one or two are ‘sub triangular’.
There are five oblique points, including two of the partially backed variety. Three
are very small, and two may be unfinished pieces analogous to the specimens recovered
in Area 4. Their diminutive proportions would suggest a late date for their manufacture,
but at least one burnt example is likely to be Early Mesolithic.
66% of all the microliths recovered are broken, and 13% are burnt.
Microlith production waste is in the form of 30 microburins, one Krukowski
piece, and another unfinished microlith. Together they form 1.3% of the lithics from Area
11. There are 22 proximal (73.4% of all forms), and seven distal (23.3%) types (one
illustrated; fig 5.30 no 7), with one double microburin (3.3%). Eight of these pieces could
be classed as mishits.
(i) Gross compositional and distributional variability
An important aspect of the vertical distribution of artefacts in Area 11 is the very large
number of spits excavated (up to 16) and the irregular horizontal distribution of lithics
(excluding chips) revealed throughout, as illustrated in Charts 72-74 (in archive) for two
metre square sample test pits, J6-64 and J6-67. This type of ‘multi modal’ distribution
pattern may be due to the intensity of activity here, post-depositional factors such as
slumping, slippage and erosion or, more likely, to a combination of such factors, with
intermittent periods of occupation and bioturbation.
Whilst microlith numbers are clearly aggregated around the hearths and their
associated pits, the lack of more extensive sampling here (especially further south and
north), precludes further comment.
48
One cluster of possible significance, however, is evident in the distribution of
microburins (including both proximal and distal types) within squares J6-57, J6-66 and
J6-67 around the south-eastern corner of the ‘fire- pit’ complex.
Cores are concentrated in the more immediate vicinity of the hearths and there is a
small cluster of burins and burin spalls in and around square J6-64, slightly removed
from the ‘fire-pit’ complex. Scrapers are thinly distributed across four metre squares
immediately south-east of the hearth.
Adze sharpening flakes are centred on squares J6-66 and J6-57, adjacent to square
J6-56 which also produced an adze.
No spatial patterning is apparent with regard to microlith type, the two main
forms being clearly superimposed on one another.
The small proportion of cores recovered here may be attributable to their
deliberate discard away from the hearths, or to post-depositional factors such as those
suggested above, including the excavated truncation of woodland soil deposits, especially
when considered in relation to the large number of platform rejuvenators identified.
(j) Re-fitting
Only one pair of re-fitting artefacts, within square J6-67, was identified in the course of
classification.
(k) Discussion
Although large quantities of flintwork were recovered from Area 11, proportionately
fewer flints were present in each spit because of the extent of vertical truncation of the
artefacts. The low mean debitage weight, reflected in an apparent absence of large flakes
and blades, and the moderate condition of the flintwork, may well be attributable to
taphonomic factors operating to a greater extent in this deepest part of the valley head
depression, although the fact that a number of separate firings took place here suggests a
likely increase in the dispersal of lithic artefacts from once nucleated lithic scatters. These
considerations and the possible effect of slope processes may partly explain the stepped
horizontal lithic distributions apparent in many metre squares. Given the substantial
numbers of diagnostic Mesolithic artefacts recorded here, especially microliths and
microburins, however, it seems likely that most of the flintwork is of Mesolithic age.
Current uncertainty with regard to microlith chronology in the Surrey Later Mesolithic
does not permit a more specific suggested date range for activity here, other than to say
that nearly all of the microliths are likely to be of Late Mesolithic date, ie spanning the
early 7th to the 5th millennia cal BC (7000-4000 BC).
Most of the straight-backed bladelets found in Area 11 are extremely narrow,
more consistently so than in any other sampled area, and they could be classed as of rodlike form. Although Roger Ellaby has suggested their replacement in the latter half of the
Late Mesolithic by ‘geometric’ forms such as the 4-sided pieces also recovered in Area
11, there is clear evidence in other parts of the British Isles for their continuation right
through to the supposed end of the Mesolithic, at least as late as the 5th millennium BC
(see references supra). Although there is no conclusive evidence at North Park Farm for
their direct association (an element of coincident distribution in Area 10 may be due to
overlapping phases of activity), there are some slight indications at the St Annes Heath
49
School site in Virginia Water for the chronological association of diminutive microlith
types and rod-like forms (Marples forthcoming).
The small number, but wide range, of tool forms present in Area 11, which can be
said to be characteristic of the North Park Farm sampled areas, if truly contemporaneous
with the scatters in which they are embedded and the apparently associated hearths,
would suggest a range of home-based activities, with some degree of spatial separation.
5.4.12 Area 12 (tables 5.1-12; figs 5.1-5.18)
(a) Summary
Area 12, located on the southern slope of the valley towards its eastern end, comprised
100 metre squares which were only sampled through single 5cm spits in four squares
along its southern edge, although a few artefacts were also collected from the previously
machine exposed surface of grey sands across the entire area. Slightly higher lithic
densities are evident in the extreme south-eastern corner. Diagnostic Mesolithic artefacts
include eight microliths, five microburins, and an adze sharpening flake, suggesting that
hunter-gatherer activity extended upslope in this part of the valley.
(b) Sampling
Only four metre squares were excavated, all close to the southern edge of Area 12,
including squares J8-94, J8-96, J8-98 and J8-100, although finds were recovered from the
surface of all save ten of the remaining 96 squares. No bulk samples were taken in Area
12.
(c) Contexts
Only a portion of the previously exposed underlying grey sands was sampled, although it
is not clear whether this constitutes the ‘transitional’ layer, or clean natural sand deposits.
(d) Quantification
Four hundred and forty-three lithic artefacts were collected altogether, including 99
chips, representing 0.9% of the total recovered in the 2005 excavations.
(e) Distribution
Lithic densities varied between one and 21 (in square J8-88), with slightly higher
numbers generally in the south-eastern corner.
(f) Raw material
The appearance of the material from Area 12 largely mirrors that from the other sampled
areas, with mainly pale to dark grey (often mottled) and some other tan hued material.
Finds are generally fresh, although there are occasional slightly weathered pieces.
Debitage breakage rates are broadly comparable to most other areas, with 54.1%
of all lithics made up of flake fragments (186 pieces).
Forty-nine worked flints, or 10.8% of the total, were also burnt.
(g) Primary technology
Mean debitage weight is 1.50g. 30 blades and 79 blade fragments were recovered, or
31.7% of the lithic total excluding chips. This would suggest that some Mesolithic
50
flintworking took place here, despite the fact that no cores were recovered. Although only
one of nine core dressings is of blade form (a plunging piece), there are also two core
face renewals, which have been found to be characteristic of ‘Horsham’ type assemblages
(Reynier 2005, 48). Chip proportions are comparatively high, at 22.3% of all lithics, but
the lack of any bulk sampling here suggests that the true percentage is likely to have been
very much higher, and that some knapping activity did occur here.
(h) Secondary technology
Excluding microliths and microburins, 14 modified pieces and spalls (4.1% of the total)
were found in Area 12. Forms identified included one adze sharpening flake, a serrate
and a fragment from a polished artefact. The latter two artefacts are both probably of
Neolithic date.
Of the nine microliths identified, three are oblique points, one is an isosceles
triangle and there is also one straight-backed bladelet. Some of the unclassified microliths
may well be fragments of straight-backed pieces. The presence of three oblique points,
one with additional retouch on the leading edge, typical of Horsham period microlith
assemblages, and an isosceles triangle, suggests that a ‘Middle Mesolithic’ element may
have been present here, and it is worth noting that a ‘Horsham’ point microlith was
recovered from square B7 located c10m to the west.
Four microburins and one Krukowski piece testify to microlith production in Area
12. All of the microburins are of proximal type, notched on the right side.
(i) Gross compositional variability
The slight concentration of lithic artefacts in the south-eastern corner of Area 12 has been
referred to supra. It is mirrored to some extent by the increased frequencies of microliths
(3) and microburins (2) in the same area.
(j) Re-fitting
Unsurprisingly, given the very partial nature of the sampling undertaken in Area 12, no
re-fitting material has been identified.
(k) Discussion
The material recovered in Area 12 extends the known distribution of Mesolithic flintwork
to this part of the valley head depression, and would tend to suggest that some knapping
activity and microlith manufacture took place here as well. The presence of three
microliths sharing affinities with ‘Horsham’ type assemblages, and one definite, and a
few possible, straight-backed bladelets, suggests a Middle Mesolithic date, perhaps
extending into the earlier part of the Late Mesolithic period (8th to 7th millennia BC).
5.4.13 All other flintwork (tables 5.1-12 and 5.14; figs 5.1-5.18)
(a) Summary
In addition to the flintwork recovered as part of the area and metre square sampling
exercise, some artefacts were collected as unstratified finds from 38 of the 100 metre grid
squares, as unassigned material from the woodland soil 52, from a variety of postMesolithic features and as general unstratified finds from the entire site. Diagnostic
material includes 11 microliths and seven microburins. A few patinated flints were
51
recovered from four 100 metre squares around Area 2, as well as three 100 metre squares
west of Area 3, extending the known distribution of patinated material at North Park
Farm. Higher proportions of unstratified cores were retrieved than in any recorded layer
or feature.
(b) Sampling
Little of the material collected outside of the area sample excavations was recovered by
sieving. Although four bulk samples were taken from three Late Bronze Age pits and one
possible Late Bronze Age cremation pit, none of these have been processed to
microdebitage level.
(c) Contexts
Only six collections of flints from the 100 metre square material were assigned spit
numbers, and these were invariably taken from spit 1, although 13 were assigned metre
square or metre square block numbers (ie 46-50 and 56-60 in square F5). One sample
from Area 4 square F8 may be the missing group from metre square F8-15 spit 2.
The only layer context present is woodland soil 52, presumably comprising
material from the western end of the site only. A handful of flints were collected from
two Mesolithic or later burnt flint scatters in D7, contexts 19 and 21.
There are three prehistoric or later tree-throw hollows, contexts 68, 85 and 91.
Late Bronze Age contexts include one possible cremation pit (75), three hollows (82, 93
and 96), and eight pits (contexts 62-64, 73, 102-3, 105 and 120).
Flintwork was also recovered from medieval features including a hearth pit (30), a
possible stakehole (38), two segments of a track gulley (186 and 188), seven pits (27, 37,
45-6, 53, 71, and 191), and thirteen ditches or ditch segments (7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 79, 86,
87, 97, 98, 108, 109, and 118).
There were three post-medieval contexts containing flintwork: late medieval/
early post-medieval causeway 4, beam-slot 295 and hollow 196. A few flints were
retrieved from undated pit 77, and several loosely designated unstratified groups from
various locations across the site.
(d) Quantification
1009 lithic artefacts and 22 chips were recovered from various features of postMesolithic date outside the principal excavation areas, as well as unstratified contexts
across the site, forming 2.1% of the 2005 flint total (including chips).
(e) Raw material
Raw material types are identical to those identified in the area excavations, consisting
mostly of chalk derived flint. The finds are of varying shades of grey, usually mottled,
with some light tan to brown, olive green, nearly black, and a few semi-translucent
pieces.
The artefacts are generally fresh, although weathering has affected some finds,
producing glossy surfaces in a few instances, especially among the general unstratified
lithics and some of the residual finds from post-Mesolithic contexts, including most of
the identified Early Bronze Age knife forms.
52
There are a few items with ferrous sandy concretions and/or iron staining, usually
on surviving cortex. A few pieces are patinated white to pale blue, mainly around Area 2
and west of Area 3.
Breakage rates are noticeably lower among flakes and blades, at 32.5% of all
flintwork, no doubt due in part to the ad hoc character of their collection.
Seventy-two struck flints, or 7% of the total, were also burnt.
(f) Distribution
Most of the one hundred metre square allotted flints can be attributed to grey sand
deposits, either of ‘transitional’ character, or deriving from the natural sands, although 45
artefacts were recovered from the woodland soil, presumably in the vicinity of Area 1.
Apart from post-Mesolithic features across the site, the remainder was collected from a
variety of spoilheaps or disturbed contexts.
(g) Primary technology
Although blades and blade fragments only represent 25.9% of the lithic total from this
group, such proportions still suggest that a significant Mesolithic debitage component is
present. This supposition is borne out by the identification of 35 blade cores, which
constitute 57.9% of the residual and unstratified core total, as well as four predominantly
flake cores with one or more bladelet scars. There are three cores of typical pyramidal
form. 27 cores bear evidence of platform edge abrasion. Neolithic and later types are
represented by three keeled and one ‘tortoise’ core, and there are two cube-shaped flaked
examples.
Characteristic Mesolithic core dressings include 12 crested pieces, 19 face
renewals, and seven plunging pieces.
(h) Secondary technology
Of the 12 identified microliths, four are of obliquely blunted and three of straight-backed
bladelet form. In addition, four microburins and two Krukowski pieces (one illustrated;
fig 5.30 no 16) were collected. Three of the microburins are typical proximal types, all
notched on the right side, and there is a single distal microburin notched on the left. One
of the proximal microburins is a mishit piece.
Examples of most tool forms identified at North Park Farm are present.
Characteristic Mesolithic tools and tool waste include an adze, four adze sharpening
flakes, 13 burins, three burin spalls, two chamfered pieces and five truncations. Some of
the 18 scrapers and four serrates recovered may be of post-Mesolithic date. More
certainly attributable to the Neolithic and Bronze Ages are two fragments from polished
artefacts, four knives (including one discoidal and two plano-convex forms), and a barbed
and tanged arrowhead of Sutton Park type.
(i) Distributional variability
Diagnostic or probable Mesolithic material was recovered from most context types,
including each of the period groups identified. Three artefacts of probable Early Bronze
Age date, including the barbed and tanged arrowhead, a bi-facially worked knife, and a
plano-convex knife fragment, were retrieved from adjoining squares I2, I3 and J3
immediately north of Area 10.
53
(j) Re-fitting
No re-fits have been identified.
(k) Discussion
Although a few post-Mesolithic artefacts were recovered as unstratified items, none were
found in association with pot sherds of contemporary date, or in securely similarly dated
features. Their residual character is clearly indicated by a degree of weathering, in the
form of surface gloss, on some pieces. The recovery of Mesolithic flintwork from a
number of one hundred metre square blocks and later features beyond the parameters of
the excavated areas, provides yet further evidence of its apparent ubiquity within the
valley head depression.
Worked flints collected in proximity to Area 2 and west of Area 3 extend the
known distribution of patinated flintwork at North Park Farm
5.5
THE ILLUSTRATED FLINTWORK
5.5.1 Introduction
Material has been selected from the 2002 and 2005 excavations to illustrate the range and
diversity of artefact and raw material types recovered from the area as a whole, including
debitage deriving from core tool manufacture in Area 6 and bladelet production in Area
1.
5.5.2 Catalogue
Fig 5.21 Area 6 Group B (produced from a distinctive speckled grey-brown flint with offwhite interior) adze thinning and sharpening flakes
1
Dorso-ventrally re-fitting ‘preparation’ type thinning flakes up to 26mm thick,
with plain or dihedral butts, two with hinged terminations, five with hard hammer
impact scars (various squares, spits 1-3, contexts 18, 106)
2-15 Various thinning flakes: nos 7, 11, 13 and 14 with dihedral butts; 5 and 11-13
with divergent margins; 4, 5, 7 and 8 with hinged terminations (squares F5-67,
F5-77 and F5-68, spits 1-2, contexts 18 and 106)
16-17 Dorso-ventrally re-fitting thinning flakes, no 17 with facetted butt (no 16 from
square F5-67, spit 1, contexts 18 and 157, no 17 from squares F5-67 and F5-77,
spit 1, context 18)
18-20 Thinning flakes with divergent margins. No 18 has bi-directional flake scars on its
dorsal surface and a stepped termination, 19 has a dihedral butt, and 19 and 20
have curved profiles. Thickness of no 19 is 5mm (squares F5-69, spit 2, context
18, F5-66, spit 3, context 106, and trench A square 20, spit 7)
21-22 Distal thinning flake fragments with divergent margins (squares F5-67 and F5-77,
spit 1, context 18)
23-24 Small fragments, no 23 with facetted butt (square F5-77, spit 1, context 18)
25
Sharpening flake (square F5-59, context 158)
26-27 Sharpening flake fragments. No 27, with a hinged termination, is a near re-fit to
no 25, and was struck from the opposite side of the parent adze (squares F5-69
and F5-68, spit 2, contexts18 and 106)
54
Fig 5.22 Area 6 Group A (produced from an opaque yellowish cherty flint) adze thinning
and sharpening flakes
1
Dorso-ventrally re-fitting sharpening flake and thinning flakes (square F5-59 spit
1, contexts 18 and 158, and trench A square 20, spit 8)
2
Block of re-fitting thinning flakes (squares F5-59 and F5-69, spits 1, 2 and 4,
contexts 18, 18/36,106 and 158)
3-9
Thinning flakes with break re-fits (squares F5-59, F5-69, spit 1, and trench A
square 20, spits 7-8, contexts 18, 18/36, and 158)
10-11 Thinning flakes with re-fitting eraillure flakes, no 10 with a facetted butt and no
11 with multiple pronounced bulbs (both trench A square 20, spits 8 and 11)
12-15 Proximal thinning flake and sharpening flake (13) fragments, no 13 with siret and
languette breaks (squares F5-63, F5-59, spit 2, contexts 18 and 158, trench A
square 20, spit 3)
16-19 Mesial and distal thinning flake fragments (squares F5-59, F5-69, and trench A
square 20, contexts 18 and 158)
20-21 Small thinning flakes with hinged terminations (square F5-59, context 158, and
trench A square 20, spit 6)
22
Small thinning flake with facetted butt (square F5-69, spit 2, context 18)
23-25 Small thinning flake fragments (squares F5-59 and F5-69, spit 1, contexts 18 and
158)
26-28 Chips. No 27 is a complete micro-flake, nos 28 and 29 are fragments (squares F559 and F5-69, spits 2-4)
29
Thinning flake with double bulb of percussion, facetted butt, bi-directional flake
scars on its dorsal surface, divergent margins, and slightly curving profile.
Thickness: 13.5mm (trench A, context 13)
30
Thinning flake with dihedral butt, bi-directional flake scars, and stepped
termination (square F5-59, context 158)
31
Thinning flake with facetted butt and multi-directional flake scars on its dorsal
surface (trench A, context 13/14)
32
Thinning flake with dihedral butt, bi-directional flake scars, one divergent margin,
and stepped termination (square F5-99, context 18)
Fig 5.23 Area 6 Group A and Group C (produced from brown mottled flint) adze thinning
and sharpening flakes
1
L-shaped thinning flake with divergent margins, bi-directional flake scars, and
hinged termination (square F5-79, spit 2, context 106)
2
L-shaped thinning flake with one divergent margin and hinged termination.
Thickness: 10mm (square F5-59, spit 3, context 18)
3
L-shaped thinning flake with one divergent margin, bi-directional flake scars,
curved profile, and stepped termination. Thickness: 4mm (square F5-59, context
158)
4
L-shaped thinning flake with one divergent margin and curved profile. Thickness:
5mm (square F5-87, spit 2, context 18)
5
Thinning flake with facetted butt, divergent margins, and hinged termination
(square F5-90, spit 3)
55
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Large L-shaped thinning flake with divergent margins, bi-directional flake scars,
and stepped termination. Some retouch scars present along right edge, and lighter
modification of left edge. Thickness: 18mm (square F5-68, spit 1, context 106)
Blade-like flake (square F5-98, spit 3, context 106)
Adze thinning fragment used to produce blades (Area 6, square F5-98, spit 1,
context 18)
Dorso-ventrally re-fitting thinning flakes from Group C, one (right) with a
facetted butt, divergent margins and slightly curving profile. The other pieces,
retaining extensive areas of cortex, could be classified as ‘preparation’ type flakes
up to 22mm thick (square F5- 57, spits 1 and 3, contexts 18 and 106)
Dorso-ventrally re-fitting ‘finishing’ type thinning flakes with curved profiles, bidirectional dorsal flake scars, divergent margins, and plain or facetted butts. The
L-shaped flake on the left is 9mm thick (square F5-66, spit 1, context 18)
Blade-like flake with hinged termination (square F5-57, spit 1, context 18)
Typical thinning flake with divergent margins, curved profile, hard hammer
impact scar on butt, and large eraillure scar (square F5-94, spit 5, context 106)
Re-fitting sharpening flake fragments with a languette-type break and hinged
termination (square F6-14, spit 1, context 18, and trench A flint scatter 1)
Distal sharpening flake fragment (square F6-13 section, context 18)
Fig 5.24 Core tools
1
Adze roughout (Area 8, square J2-100)
2
Adze, radially flaked at both ends, wedge shaped in section (Area 4, square F795, spit 3)
3
Tranchet adze, possibly re-used as a hammerstone at butt end, but the bruising
visible here can be paralleled on other Mesolithic core tools and may be a
deliberate feature to reduce wear in a sleeve (cf Field 1989, 7) (square I5 NW,
context 36)
4
Tranchet axe or adze, blade fragment with lenticular cross-section and two
transverse sharpening flake removals (trench A, square 25, spit 1)
5
Adze fragment re-used as a bladelet core. Blade end of adze, with bladelet
removals made from break (Area 10, square I4-24, spit 4, context 121)
Fig 5.25 Sharpening flakes and pick
1
Adze sharpening flake (Area 6, square F6-34, spit 3, context 18)
2
Adze sharpening flake (Area 6, square F6-16/26, context 33)
3
Adze sharpening flake (Area 6, square F5-66, spit 1, context 18)
4
Adze sharpening flake (Area 6, square F6-40, context 18/58)
5
Pick (square I5-96)
6
Pick sharpening flake (Area 4, square F8-37, spit 1)
Fig 5.26 Tools and tool debitage (UW refers to use-wear finds number (table 6.4))
1
End scraper on a blade with retouch along both lateral margins (UW 2, Area 1
square C5-78, spit 2, context 60)
2
End scraper on a blade-like flake (UW 226, Area 6 square F5-66, spit 1, context
18)
56
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
End scraper on a flake with additional light retouch along distal right edge
(possibly incidental or use related), and notch on proximal left edge (UW 13,
Area 6 square F6-34, spit 4, context 106)
Oblique truncation (UW 229, Area 6 square F5-67, spit 2, context 106, BS 462)
Straight truncation (UW 233, Area 6 square F5-88, context 156, BS 359)
Concave truncation (UW 275, Area 10 square I4-37, spit 2, context 121)
Piercer on a flake or blade fragment (UW 242, Area 6 square F6-24, spit 2,
context 18)
Piercer on a truncation formed on the proximal end of a flake or blade, with slight
additional retouch on distal end (UW 282, Area 10 square J4-44, spit 1, context
36
Fabricator (UW 165, Area 3 square D7-98, spit 1)
Transverse burin formed on lateral retouch and a distal truncation (Area 6, square
F6-38, spit 1, context 18)
Burin formed on the proximal truncation of a blade (Area 6, square F6-27, spit 4,
context 106)
Denticulate on a flake (UW 256, Area 6, square F6-39, context 58)
Denticulate on a core face trimming flake, proximal end and parts of both lateral
edges missing. Small area of scraper type retouch on right lateral edge close to
break (UW 260, Area 6 context 72)
Serrated flake or blade fragment, with up to ten teeth per 10mm and additional
retouch along left edge (Area 9, square I5-84, context 36)
Serrated flake, up to eight teeth per 10mm (UW 199, Area 4, square F8-43, spit 2,
context 153)
Chamfered piece on a flake. Transverse chamfer facet on ventral surface, with
some prior transverse flaking on dorsal surface. Retouch scars (probably use
related) on distal end and along part of one edge (UW 273, Area 10 square I4-19,
spit 2, context 121)
Chamfered piece on a blade. Transverse chamfer facet with some probably use
related retouch on dorsal surface (Area 4, square F8-36, spit 2, context 153/154)
Notched flake (UW 191, Area 4, square F8-33, spit 2, context 152/154)
Notched flake (UW 294, Area 11, square J6-64, spit 6, context 183
Notch spall (Area 10, square J4-65, spit 1, context 159)
Burin spall. Distal fragment of burin re-sharpening spall (Area 10, square I4-43,
4, context 121)
Edge modified plunging blade with light irregular damage extending along right
lateral margin (UW 159, Area 1 square C5-97, spit 1, context 34
Edge modified plunging blade with irregular damage extending along right lateral
margin and much fainter damage on left lateral margin (UW 153, Area 1, square
C5-66, spit 1, context 34)
Retouched blade, retouch extends along most of right edge (trench A, square 27,
spit 1)
Retouched blade, alternating retouch on right edge and irregular, possibly use
related modification on left edge (trench A, square 27, spit 1)
Hammerstone with five areas of heavy impact damage, several incidental flake
scars and one intentionally flaked facet (Area 4, square F8-24, spit 1, context 151)
57
Fig 5.27 Area 1 dark flint nodule
1
Partially re-fitted nodule, including one bladelet core (fig 5.33 no 2) and four
rejuvenation flakes (various squares, contexts 34, 52, 56 and 60, including finds 1
and 2)
2
Dorso-ventrally re-fitting blades and flakes (one burnt) that re-fit onto no 1
(squares C5-76, C5-78, and C5-88, spits 1 and 2, context 52
3
Dorso-ventrally re-fitting blade and plunging blade (squares C5-87 and C5-88,
spit 1, contexts 34 and 52)
4
Rejuvenation flake (square C5-76, spit 1, context 52)
5
Primary flake (square C5-96, context 55, BS 65)
6
Bladelet core (square C5-78, spit 1, context 34)
7-10 Secondary and tertiary flakes (various squares, spits 1 and 2, contexts 34 and 52)
11-14 Secondary and tertiary bladelets (various squares, spit 1, contexts 34 and 52,
including BS 39, 48 and 53)
15-16 Proximal bladelet fragments (various squares, spit 1, context 52, including BS 39)
17-20 Mesial blade and bladelet fragments, with 18 and 20 burnt (various squares, spit
1, context 52, including BS 24 and 48)
21-24 Distal blade and bladelet fragments (various squares, spit 1, contexts 34, 52 and
60, including BS 180)
25
Proximal microburin (square C5-97, context 52)
Fig 5.28 Area 1 light flint nodule
1-2
Dorso-ventrally re-fitting primary and secondary flakes (squares C5-87 and C577, spit 1, contexts 34 and 52, including find 13 and BS 151)
3
Partially re-fitted nodule including two blade cores (fig 5.32 nos 1 and 3) (various
squares, contexts 34 and 52, including find 12)
4-8
Dorso-ventrally re-fitting secondary and tertiary flakes and blades. No 5 re-fits
onto no 3 (various squares, contexts 34, 52 and 60, spits 1 and 2, including find 1
and BS 26, 49)
9-11 Tertiary flakes (squares A27, spit1, C5-68, spit 1, C5-67, spit 1, contexts 34 and
52, including BS 53)
12-14 Tertiary blades (squares A27, spit 1, C5-67, spit 1, C5-87, spit 1, context 52)
15-24 Chips, comprising complete micro-flakes as well as fragments (nos 17, 23 and
24), (square C5-77, spit 2, context 60, BS 189)
25-30 Proximal bladelet fragments (various squares, spits 1 and 2, contexts 34, 52 and
60, including BS 24, 49 and 177)
31-36 Mesial bladelet fragments (various squares, spit 1, contexts 34 and 52, including
BS 48, 49 and 154)
37-42 Distal bladelet fragments (various squares, spit 1, contexts 34 and 52, including
BS 53 and 151)
43-45 Proximal microburins (squares C5-76, spit 2 and C5-78, spits 1 and 2, contexts
34, 52 and 60, including BS 204)
46
Broken microlith (square C5-78, spit 1, context 52)
47
Crested blade (square C5-76, spit 1, context 52)
48
Notched plunging blade (square C5-66, spit 1, context 34)
58
49
50
Burin formed on the proximal end of a blade (square C5-86, spit 1, context 34)
End scraper on the distal fragment of a flake or blade (square A27, spit 1)
Fig 5.29 Cores and core dressings
1
Re-fitting retouched crested blade (b) and blade core (a) on a thinning flake (Area
6, square F5-99, spit 2 and spit 1, context 18)
2
Re-fitting retouched flake (b), burnt flake (c), which re-fits onto (b), and
minimally worked core on a flake (a) (all trench A, square 27, spit 1)
3
Single platform bladelet core with remnant cresting (right view) (trench A, square
22, spit 2)
4
Re-fitting platform rejuvenation flake (b) and single platform bladelet core (a),
with crushing towards base of core possibly caused by resting on an anvil (both
trench A, square 27, spit 1)
5
Three platform bladelet core with crushing on base (lower view), resulting from
anvil or hammerstone use (trench A, square 20, spit 5/6)
6
Single platform flake core with crushing on base (lower view), probably due to
resting on an anvil (trench A, square 13, spit 4)
7
Bilaterally crested blade (trench A square 21, spit 3(E)
8
Unilaterally crested blade (Area 6, square F5-86, spit 1, context 18)
9
Plunging blade (Area 6, square F5-68, spit 2, context 166, BS 381)
10
Plunging bladelet (Area 10, square J4-14, spit 2, context 121)
11
Core tablet (Area 6, square F5-87, spit 2, context 18, BS 501)
12
Core tablet (Area 2, square D3-30, spit 1)
13
Partial platform rejuvenation flake (trench A, 76-81m, context 13)
14
Partial platform rejuvenation flake (Area 10, square H4-50, spit 1, context 121)
15
Flanc de nucleus (trench C, context C16)
16
Flanc de nucleus (Area 10, square J4-56, spit 1, context 159)
Fig 5.30 Microburins and related forms
1
Proximal right notched microburin (Area 1, square C5-97, context 52, BS 45)
2
Proximal left notched microburin (Area 6, square F5-77, context 156, BS 358)
3
Proximal right notched microburin mishit (Area 4, square F8-16, spit 1, context
151)
4
Proximal left notched microburin mishit (Area 10, square J4-39, spit 1, context
121)
5
Distal right notched microburin (Area 6, square F6-15, context 33)
6
Distal left notched microburin (Area 6, square F6-14, spit 1, context 18)
7
Distal right notched microburin mishit (Area 11, square J6-54, spit 4, context 121)
8
Ditstal left notched microburin mishit (Area 4, square F8-16, spit 1, context 151)
9
Double microburin mishit (Area 6, square F5-78, spit 2, context 168, BS 510)
10
‘Spatulate’ form (Area 4, square F8-65, spit 1, context 151)
11
Lamelle a cran (Area 10, square H4-40, spit 3, context 121)
12
Lamelle a cran (Area 4, square F8-23, spit 1, context 151)
13
Unfinished microlith (Area 6, square F6, context 58, BS 181)
14
Unfinished microlith (Area 10, square J4-43, spit 2, context 159, BS 484)
15
Krukowski microburin (Area 10, square J4-13, spit 3, context 121)
59
16
Krukowski microburin (Area 12, square J8-87)
Fig 5.31 Microliths
1
Obliquely blunted point fragment, Clark type A. Obliquely truncated, Jacobi class
1a (trench A, square 29, spit 3, UW 155)
2
Obliquely blunted point fragment, Clark type A. Partially backed, Jacobi class 1ac
(trench A, square 26, spit 1,UW 53)
3
Obliquely blunted point fragment with possible impact fracture, Clark type A.
Partially backed, Jacobi class 1ac (trench A, square 27, spit 1)
4
Obliquely blunted point, Clark type A. Partially backed, Jacobi class 1a? (trench
A, square 25, spit 3)
5
Obliquely blunted point with impact fracture, Clark type A. Partially backed,
Jacobi class 1ac (trench A, square 13, spit 8)
6
Obliquely blunted point, burnt, Clark type A. Obliquely truncated with additional
retouch on leading edge, Jacobi class 1b (trench A, context 14, 63-68m)
7
Obliquely blunted point fragment, Clark type A. Partially backed with additional
retouch on leading edge, Jacobi class 1bc (trench A, square A25, spit 1)
8
Obliquely blunted point, Clark type A. Obliquely truncated, Jacobi class 1a
(trench C, context 15)
9
Obliquely blunted point, Clark type A. Partially backed, Jacobi class 1ac (trench
C, context 15, test pit 1)
10
Isosceles triangle, Clark type D1a, Jacobi class 2a (trench B, square 1, spit 3, BS
B)
11
Lanceolate, Jacobi class 3c. Blunted back Clark type B (Area 6, square F5-79, spit
1, context 18)
12
Straight-backed bladelet with additional retouch on leading edge, Jacobi class 5b.
Blunted down one edge and across base, Clark type C? (trench A, square 31, spit
2, UW 82)
13
Straight-backed bladelet, Jacobi class 5a. Blunted down the whole of one edge,
Clark type B (trench A, square 31, spit 4, BS A)
14
Convex backed, Jacobi class 4. Crescent, Clark type D2 (Area 10, square I4-55,
spit 4, UW 97)
15
Convex backed, Jacobi class 4. Crescent, Clark type D2 (Area 6, square F5-99,
spit 2, context 18)
16
Rod, Jacobi class 6a. Blunted down the whole of two edges, Clark type B2 (trench
A, square 22, spit 2)
17
Rod, Jacobi class 6a. Blunted down the whole of one edge, Clark type B1 (trench
A, square 31, spit 4, UW 83)
18
Scalene triangle, Jacobi class 7a, Clark type D1b (trench A, square 13, spit 2, BS
A)
19
Scalene triangle, Jacobi class 7a, Clark type D1b (trench A, square 10, spit 6)
20
Scalene triangle, Jacobi class 7b, Clark type D1b (trench A, square 8, spit 2)
21
‘Geometric’ isosceles triangle, Clark type D1a (Area 10, square J4-47, spit 1,
context 159, BS 471)
22
4-sided microlith, Jacobi class 8, Clark type D6 (trench A, square 10, spit 6,
context 43)
60
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
4-sided microlith, Jacobi class 8, Clark type D6 (trench A, square 6, spit 1)
Lunate, Jacobi class 9. Crescent with arc blunted, Clark type D2a (trench A,
square 6, spit 1)
Assymetrical point with concave basal modification (‘Horsham point’), Jacobi
class 10a. Assymetrical hollow-based point, retouched from the dorsal side, Clark
type F1b (trench B, square 7, spit 4)
Straight backed microlith with inverse retouch on both lateral edges, Jacobi class
12c. Point with inverse retouch at pointed base, Clark type E2 (trench A, square
10, spit 7)
Shouldered or tanged point, Clark type G, with steep, bidirectional (anvil) retouch
along right edge (trench B, square 6, spit 3)
Shouldered or tanged point, Clark type G, with steep, bidirectional (anvil) retouch
along right edge (Area 10, square J4-25, spit 2, context 159, UW 340)
‘Curved point’, Group A with bulb intact (cf Rankine 1946, 6-8) (Area 6, square
F6-27, spit 1)
Fig 5.32 Single and opposed platform bladelet cores
1
Single platform bladelet core from light flint nodule re-fitting group (cf fig 5.28
no 3), 74g (Area 1, square C5-67, spit 1, context 52). This core was produced on a
flake detached at an early stage in the reduction sequence from the partially refitted light flint nodule, and part of its ventral surface is still extant (0 in fig 5.32
no 1). A number of bladelets (removals 2-7), one large re-fitting blade (1), and at
least two flakes, were removed from a single platform that was rejuvenated by the
removal of two core tablets in immediate succession. The scar of the second
rejuvenation flake (8), which had probably been detached to rectify the flaking
angle occasioned by removal of the earlier core tablet, served as the striking
platform for a few subsequent detachments (9-12), including two flakes with
hinge terminations (11 and 12). The presence of the latter, coupled with the
extensive area of remnant cortex on the back of the core, precluded any further
working, and the core was then abandoned
2
Single platform pyramidal bladelet core, 43g (Area 6, square F5/6, context 57).
All extant removal scars with negative bulbs of percussion indicate flaking from a
single striking platform with a flaw at one end (4), the edges of which have been
carefully abraded to remove projecting spurs, until the final sequence of
detachments (represented by scars 22-25). Earlier flaking from an opposed
platform (which was probably removed by a plunging blade, 21), is indicated by
bladelet scars (1) and (2) lacking their negative bulbs of percussion. Whilst some
earlier removals (eg 5 and 7) run down the extant face of the core, subsequent
bladelets became progressively shorter, or are characterised by hinged distal
terminations (11, 14-17 and 22-25), a factor which may have resulted in the core’s
rejection
3
Opposed platform bladelet core/burin, 67g (Area 1, square C5- 87, spit 1, context
52). This is the residual core from the partially re-fitted light flint nodule group
(fig 5.28 no 3). The main striking platform was generated by the initial removal of
a large primary or secondary flake with a hinged termination (1). Flake scar (2)
derives from the lateral edge of a large re-fitting secondary flake, attributable to
61
4
initial decortication and shaping of the core. A subsequent phase of shaping and
modification of the other side and base of the core is represented by flake scars
(3-10), struck from two platforms at right angles to the first, which derive from
removal of the large flake forming core 1 and the secondary flake represented by
partial flake scar (2). The first of these removals relates to a large re-fitting
secondary flake (3) and a group of six re-fitting flakes and blades, including two
bladelets with curving profiles (fig 5.28 no 5). Subsequent opposed platform
working of the core face is indicated by blade-like scars (11-22), with one flake
re-fitting onto scar (5). Two removals (17 and 20) had hinged terminations, and
these may have been intended to produce graving points on the base of the core,
corresponding with the graving edge formed by burin facet removals (23-26).
Some additional working after the removal of (20) is indicated by a small spall
and faint crack-lines, which may have been caused by an unsuccessful blow on
the proximal end of flake scar/burin facet (10). Platform edge retouch is evident
along the top of the core, especially in the vicinity of the main burin spall removal
sequence, and may constitute deliberate preparation in advance of their striking
Opposed platform cylindrical bladelet core, 32g (Area 6, square F6, context 76).
An earlier phase of working on this core is represented by the truncated flake scar
(1), struck at right angles to both striking platforms. Most extant removals (3-12)
were made from the main platform, and these take the form of bladelet scars
running down the working face of the core, except where truncated by later
removals from the opposite platform, or where, especially latterly (10-12),
intended removals stopped short due to hinged terminations. Evidence of platform
edge abrasion is apparent after the removal of the bladelets represented by scars
(7-9). The second striking platform was probably formed by rejuvenation at the
base of the core (flake scar 13), from which were struck one bladelet (14) and four
flakes with hinged terminations (15-18). The extent of hinged removals extending
down the working face of the core precluded further rejuvenation, and it was
therefore discarded.
Fig 5.33 Orthogonal bladelet cores
1
Double platform bladelet core, two platforms at right angles, 100g (trench A,
square 7, spit 3). The earliest detectable phase of working on this core is indicated
by a few truncated bladelet scars (1-3 and possibly 4-5), prior to rejuvenation of
the main striking platform (represented by flake scar 6). Removals (7-10)
traversed the greater part of the working face of the core, although, as with
removal (4), bladelets (9) and (10) terminated in hinges. Another phase of
platform rejuvenation is indicated by truncated flake scar (11), from which a
number of successively shorter bladelet and small flake removals were made (as
represented by scars 12-19), many with hinged terminations (12-14 and 17), and
some platform edge trimming was undertaken, but successful flaking was clearly
hampered by the presence of a large void (V1). A second platform was then
initiated at right angles, by removing the blade-like flake represented by scar (20).
A number of progressively shorter bladelets and small flakes were then detached,
including three with hinged terminations (24, 26, 30), but no platform edge
trimming was carried out, and flaking was hampered by the presence of three
62
2
small voids (V2-V4). The presence of cortex on the back of the core, coupled with
the size and number of voids present, and the increasing frequency of hinged
terminations, precluded effective rejuvenation of either striking platform or of the
working faces of the core and, unsurprisingly, it was then abandoned.
Double platform bladelet core from dark flint nodule re-fitting group (cf fig 5.27
no 1), 87g (Area 1, square C5-78, spit 1, context 34, BS 154). This core was
produced on a thick flake, the original ventral surface of which is represented by
scar (0), part of its bulbar scar (B), and a small thermal flaw (T). Flaking was
initiated from a cortical surface with the removal of a bladelet (1), the distal
portion of which extends across the surface of a re-fitting rejuvenation flake. A
few small flakes were then detached, including those represented by scars (2) and
(3), the latter terminating in a hinge. One element of this sequence, a flake
fragment resulting from a siret knapping accident, has been re-fitted onto its
parent core. The resultant hinge, and the presence of two small voids (V1),
precluded further flaking, and removals were then made from another platform at
right angles to the first, deriving from the ventral surface of the original flake,
although there is no evidence of this on the relict core. A pronounced hinge close
to the platform edge was formed during this brief phase of reduction, however,
necessitating the removal of a re-fitting rejuvenation flake, the distal extremity of
which is represented by flake scar (4). Removals then proceeded at right angles to
the immediately preceding phase, utilizing a striking platform generated by the
removal of a primary or secondary flake which terminated in a small hinge, which
had occurred prior to flaking from the second platform. Most removals from this
third striking platform are of bladelet proportions. Successive rejuvenation flakes
(12 and 13), both of which have been re-fitted, were then detached, possibly to
modify the flaking angle and to remove an area of small hinges close to the
platform edge. Flaking then resumed from the rejuvenated platform with the
detachment of a series of successively shorter bladelets and small flakes,
represented by flake scars (14-25), two (14 and 23) with hinged terminations. By
this stage, the working face of the core had become progressively undercut (a
feature exemplified by a nearly re-fitting plunging blade likely to derive from a
slightly earlier phase in this reduction sequence), and the flaking angle had
become increasingly acute, rendering the successful production of bladelets
increasingly difficult. This development, and the presence of remnant cortex
around the back, are likely to have been the determining factors leading to the
core’s ultimate abandonment
Fig 5.34 Core on a flake and three platform core
1
Double platform flake and bladelet core on a flake, with platforms at right angles,
52g (Area 4, square F8-24, spit 1). This core was also produced on a thick, hard
hammer struck flake with a pronounced bulb of percussion. An earlier phase of
working, perhaps relating to the initial trimming of the parent nodule, or flaking
from a striking platform no longer extant, is indicated by flake scar (1). Flake
scars (2) and (3) may derive from removals from the flake’s original striking
platform. Reduction was initiated from the ventral surface of the flake, and the
extant scars (4-15) represent a series of flake and possible bladelet removals, five
63
2
with hinged terminations (9, 11, 12, 14, and 15, although the last may be of
modern origin), which have become progressively shorter in length. Platform
edge trimming is evident prior to the final stage of flaking represented by scars
(13) to (15). The resulting working face of the core was then used as a second
platform, although one flake scar (17) attests to earlier flaking, perhaps from a
platform that is no longer extant. A small flake scar (16) relates to partial
rejuvenation of this platform, from which a few flake and bladelet type removals
were then made prior to the core’s abandonment. Further flaking might have been
possible, but the depth of flake scar (13), the presence of some remnant cortex,
and the uneven surface of the second striking platform caused by the residual
flake scar (1), may have been reasons for the core’s abandonment
Three platform bladelet core, 114g (Area 10, square J4-14, spit 1, context 159).
Three flake scars (1-3) on this core relate to an earlier phase of reduction, but
most of the remaining scars reflect a pattern of successive bladelet removals from
two opposed platforms (6-16 and 22-27, including two with hinged terminations,
23 and 24), punctuated by phases of rejuvenation, or attempted rejuvenation
(represented by scars 17-21 and 32-37). The final stage of rejuvenation of the
main striking platform was followed by removing the bladelets and flakes
represented by scars (22-27), although rejuvenation was hampered by the
termination of three flake scars in pronounced hinges (17, 19 and 20), as well as
by the presence of a small void (V). Attempted rejuvenation of the opposing
platform was characterised by the detachment of three flakes with hinged
terminations, and no further bladelet production was attempted from this platform
due to the presence of stacked hinged termination scars (including 29-31) on the
adjacent working face of the core. This phase was followed by the generation and
attempted rejuvenation of a third striking platform at right angles, represented by
flake scars (38-43) and (44-46), respectively. Both platform preparation (38) and
attempted rejuvenation (44-46) flake scars, as well as flake removals 41-43
relating to the working of this platform, terminated in hinges, and it seems likely
that the presence of these on all three striking platforms, as well as on the working
faces, of the core, resulted in its rejection
64
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations
ASE
Archaeology South-East
BAR
British Archaeological Reports
CBA
Council for British Archaeology
SCAU
Surrey County Archaeological Unit
SyAC
Surrey Archaeological Collections
SyAS Surrey Archaeological Society
of Horsham, Archaeol J, 90, 52–77
Clark, J G D, & Rankine, W F, 1939 Excavations at Farnham, Surrey
(1937–38), Proc Prehist Soc, 5, 61–118
Clark, J G D, 1971 Excavations at Star Carr
Collins, D, 1989 The geometric types, in Collins & Lorimer 1989, 24
Collins, D, & Lorimer, D, (eds), 1989 Excavations at the Mesolithic site on West
Heath, Hampstead, 1976–1981, Brit Archaeol Rep, 217
Conneller, C, & Warren, G, 2006 Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: new
approaches
Place of publication given where outside Britain
Cotton, J, 2002 The lithics, in Sidell et al 2002, 68–81
Cotton, J & Field, D, (eds), 2004 Towards a New Stone Age: aspects of the
Adamiec, G, & Aitken, M J, 1998 Dose-rate conversion factors: new data,
Ancient TL, 16, 37–50
Aitken, M J, 1985 Thermoluminescence dating
Ashmore, P, 1999 Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed
samples, Antiquity, 73, 124–30
Ashton, N, Healy, F, & Pettitt, P, (eds), 1998 Stone Age Archaeology. Essays in
honour of John Wymer, Lithic Studies Soc Occasional Paper, 6
Bailey, R, Branch, N, and Stallard, J, 2007 North Park Farm Quarry,
Bletchingley Surrey: Optical Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating of a
Mesolithic archaeological site, Stage 1, Research Dept Rep Ser, 98/2007
Barton, R N E, 1992 Hengistbury Head Dorset. Vol 2: the Late Upper Palaeolithic
and Early Mesolithic sites, Oxford University Comm Archaeol Monogr,
34
Barton, R N E, Berridge, P J, Walker, M J C, & Bevins, R E, 1995 Persistent
places in the Mesolithic landscape: an example from the Black
Neolithic in south-east England, CBA Res Rep, 137
Corcoran, J X W P 1963 Excavation of the bell barrow in Deerleap Wood,
Wotton, SyAC 60, 1–18
Cummings, V, 2000 Myth, memory and metaphor: The significance of place,
space and the landscape in Mesolithic Pembrokeshire, in Young 2000,
87–95
David, A, 1998 Two assemblages of Later Mesolithic microliths from Seamer
Carr, North Yorkshire: fact and fancy, in Ashton et al 1998, 196–204
Dee, M, and Bronk Ramsey, C, 2000 Refinement of graphite target production
at ORAU, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B 172,
449–53
Donahue, R E, 1988 Microwear analysis and site function of Paglicci Cave 4a,
World Archaeol, 19(3), 357–75
Donahue, R E, 1994 The current state of lithic microwear research, in
Stories in stone (eds N Ashton & A David), Lithic Studies Society,
Mountain uplands of South Wales, Proc Prehist Soc, 61, 81–116
Bayliss, A, Boomer, I, Bronk Ramsey, C, Hamilton, D, & Waddington, C,
2007 Absolute dating, in Waddington 2007
Oxford, 156–68
Donahue, R E, 1998 Lithic microwear analysis of artefacts from Barnham, in
Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at East Farm, Barnham,
Bird, D, & Bird, J, (eds), 1987 The archaeology of Surrey to 1540
Suffolk, 1989–1994 (eds N Ashton, S G Lewis, & S Parfitt), British
Blockley, S P E, Lowe, J J, Walker, M J C, Asioli, A, Trincardi, F, Coope, G R,
Donahue, R E, & Pollard, A M, 2004 Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon
chronologies: examples from the European Late-glacial, J Quaternary
Sci, 19, 159–75
Branch, N P, Kemp, R A, Green, C P, Swindle, G E, 2003 Environmental
archaeological assessment for North Park Farm Quarry, Bletchingley,
Surrey (site code: NPF02), Unpublished ArchaeoScape report
Bronk Ramsey, C, 1995 Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy:
the OxCal Program, Radiocarbon, 37, 425–30
Museum Occasional Paper, 125, 245–50
Donahue, R E, 1999 The microwear analysis of the flint artefacts from Upper
Ninepence, in A Gibson The Walton Basin Project: Excavation and
survey in a prehistoric landscape, 1993–1997, CBA Res Rep, 118,
100–26
Donahue, R E, 2002 The lithic microwear analysis of the B&Q Mesolithic and
Neolithic site, in Sidell et al 2002, 81–8
Donahue, R E, & Burroni, D B, 2004 Lithic microwear analysis and the
formation of archaeological assemblages, in Lithics in action: papers
Bronk Ramsey, C, 1998 Probability and dating, Radiocarbon, 40, 461–74
for the conference lithic studies in the year 2000 (eds E A Walker, F
Bronk Ramsey, C, 2001 Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal,
Radiocarbon, 43 (2A), 355–63
Bronk Ramsey, C, forthcoming Deposition models for chronological records,
Quaternary Sci Reviews
Buck, C E, Cavanagh, W G, & Litton, C D, 1996 Bayesian approach to
interpreting archaeological data
Burroni, D B, Donahue, R E, Pollard, A M, & Mussi, M, 2002 The surface
alteration features of flint artefacts as a record of environmental
processes, J Archaeol Sci, 29, 1277–87
Chatterton, R, 2007 South Haw: an upland Mesolithic site in its local and
regional context, in Waddington & Pedersen 2007, 69–80
Wenban-Smith, & F Healy), 140–48
Donahue, R E, and Evans, A A, 2004 Microwear analysis of the lithic artefacts
of Wellington Quarry, technical report prepared for the Worcestershire
Archaeological Unit
Donahue, R E, and Pollard, A M, 2004 Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon
chronologies: examples from the European Late-glacial, J Quaternary
Sci, 19, 159–75
Drewett, P L, (ed) 1978 Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500, Brit Archaeol Rep,
29
Duller, G, (in prep) Luminescence dating: Guidelines on using luminescence
Clark, J G D, 1934 The classification of a microlithic culture: the Tardenoisian
117
A MESOLITHIC ‘PERSISTENT PLACE’ AT NORTH PARK FARM, BLETCHINGLEY, SURREY
dating in archaeology, English Heritage
Ellaby, R, 1987 The Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic in Surrey, in Bird & Bird
1987, 53–69
Ellaby, R, 1985 Prehistoric and medieval occupation near Flanchford Mill,
Reigate, SyAC, 76, 51–60
Ellaby, R, 2004 Food for thought: a Late Mesolithic site at Charlwood, Surrey,
in Cotton & Field 2004, 12–23
Evans, A A, 2009 Microwear analysis and the role of the microlith in Mesolithic
Britain, PhD Thesis, University of Bradford
Farr, L R, 2009 Enhancing our understanding of Mesolithic environments and
resource exploitation in south-east England: a case study from Surrey,
PhD thesis, Royal Holloway College, University of London
Field, D, 1989 Tranchet axes and Thames picks: Mesolithic core tools from the
West London Thames, Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc, 40, 1–26
Finlayson, B, & Warren, G, 2000 The Mesolithic of Eastern Scotland, in
Young 2000, 133–41
Finalyson, B, 2006 Overview – setting up questions, in Conneler and Warren
2006, 167–84
Finlayson, B, Finlay, N, & Mithen, S, 2000 The cataloguing and analysis of the
lithic assemblages, in Mithen 2000a, 61–72
Gabel, G, 1976 St Catherine’s Hill: a Mesolithic site near Guildford, SyAS Res
Vol, 3, 77–111
Galbraith, R F, Roberts, R G, Laslett, G M, Yoshida, H, and Olley, J M, 1999
Optical dating of single and multiple grains of quartz from Jinmium
131–206
S J Shennan and R T Schadla Hall), Hampshire Field Club Archaeol Soc
Monogr, 1, 10–25
Jones, P, 2006 Some flints from the Bletchingley area, SyAS Bulletin, 391, 5–7
Jones, P, in prep a Excavations at North Park Farm, Bletchingley, Surrey, in 2005:
the later Prehistoric archaeology
Jones, P, in prep b Excavations at North Park Farm, Bletchingley, Surrey, in 2005:
the medieval and later archaeology
Jones, P, in prep c Excavations at North Park Farm, Bletchingley, Surrey, 2001–13
Lamdin-Whymark, H, 2001 Neolithic activity on the floodplain of the River
Thames at Dorney, Lithics 22, 22–36
Larsen, L (ed) 2003 Mesolithic on the move
Lee, J A, and Kemp, R A, 1992 Thin sections of unconsolidated sediments and soils:
a recipe, Royal Holloway: CEAM Report, 2, 32
Lentfer, C, Therin, M, & Torrence, R, 2002 Starch grains and environmental
reconstruction: a modern test case from West New Britain, Papua New
Guinea, J Archaeol Sci, 29, 687–98
Levi Sala, I, 1986a Experimental replication of post-depositional surface
modification on flint, in L Owen and G Unrath, (eds), Technical
aspects of microwear studies on stone tools, Early Man News, 9–11,
103–9
Levi Sala, I, 1986b Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: a
word of caution, J Archaeol Sci, 13, 229–44
Lewis, J & Pine, J, 2008 Pendell Farm, Bletchingley, Surrey: an archaeological
rock shelter (northern Australia): part I, experimental design and
evaluation Phase 1, Thames Valley Archaeol Services client report
statistical models, Archaeometry, 41, 339–64
PFB08/13
Gale, R & Cutler, D, 2000 Plants in archaeology
Marples, N J, 2003 Preliminary flint report, in Hayman 2003
Gardiner, J, nd Resource assessment. The Mesolithic in Hampshire
Marples, N J, 2004 Preliminary flint report, in Hayman et al 2004
Groenendijk, H A, 1987 Mesolithic hearth pits in the Veencolonien (province
Marples, N J, 2006 The flintwork, in Poulton et al 2006
Groningen, the Netherlands), defining a specific use of fire in the
Mesolithic, Palaeohistoria, 29, 85–102
Grootes, P M, Stuvier, M, White, J W C, Johnsen, S, and Jouzel, J, 1993
Mejdahl, V, 1979 Thermoluminescence dating: beta-dose attenuation in quartz
grains, Archaeometry, 21, 61–72
Mithen, S (ed), 2000a Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: the Southern
Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the GISP2 and GRIP
Hebrides Mesolithic project 1988–98. Vol 1: project development,
Greenland ice cores, Nature, 366, 552–4
palaeoenvironmental studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay,
Harding, P, 2000 A Mesolithic site at Rock Common, Washington, West
Sussex, Sussex Archaeol Collect, 138, 29–48
Harding, P, 2011 Little flints mean a lot: thoughts on the Mesolithic in the
Swindon area, Wilts Archaeol Nat Hist Mag, 104, 15–22
Hayman, G, Marples, N, Poulton, R, & Branch, N, 2004 An archaeological
evaluation of the Mesolithic hollow at North Park Farm, nr Bletchingley,
Surrey (NPF02), A report submitted to English Heritage
Hedges, R E M, Law, I A, Bronk, C R, and Housley, R A, 1989 The Oxford
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry facility: technical developments in
routine dating, Archaeometry, 31, 99–113
Hind, S, & Poulton, R, 2009 An archaeological watching brief on the
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of
Cambridge
Mithen, S, (ed), 2000b Hunter-Gatherer landscape archaeology: the Southern
Hebrides Mesolithic project 1988–1998. Vol 2: archaeological fieldwork
in Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental work and final
interpretations, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
University of Cambridge
Mook, W G, 1986 Business meeting: recommendations/resolutions adopted
by the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference, Radiocarbon,
28, 799
Morecroft, M D, Stokes, V J, & Morison, J I L, 2003 Seasonal changes in
redevelopment of Place Farm Barn, Bletchingley, Surrey, Surrey County
the photosynthetic capacity of canopy oak (Quercus robur) leaves:
Archaeological Unit Client Report
the impact of slow development on annual carbon uptake, Internat J
Holgate, R, 2004 Managing change: the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in
south-east England, in Cotton & Field 2004, 24–8
Hooper, W 1933 The pigmy flint industries of Surrey, SyAC, 41, 50–78
Hütt, G, Jaek, I, & Tchonka, J, 1988 Optical dating: K-feldspars optical
response stimulation spectra, Quaternary Sci Reviews, 7, 381–6
Biometeorology, 47, 221–6
Murray, A S, & Olley, J M, 2002 Precision and accuracy in the Optically
Stimulated Luminescence dating of sedimentary quartz: a status
review, Geochronometria, 21, 1–16
Murray, A S, & Roberts, R G, 1997 Determining the burial time of single
Jacobi, R M, 1978 The Mesolithic of Sussex, in Drewett 1978, 15–22
grains of quartz using optically stimulated luminescence, Earth and
Jacobi, R M, 1980 The Early Holocene settlement of Wales, in Taylor 1980,
Planetary Sci Letters, 152, 163–80
118
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Murray, A S, & Wintle, A G, 2000 Luminescence dating of quartz using
an improved single-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol, Radiation
Measurements, 32, 57–73
Murray, A S, & Wintle, A G, 2003 The single aliquot regenerative dose
protocol: potential for improvements in reliability, Radiation
Measurements, 37, 377–81
Murray, A S, Olley, J M, & Caitcheon, G G, 1995 Measurement of equivalent
doses in quartz from contemporary water-lain sediments using
optically stimulated luminescence, Quaternary Sci Reviews, 14, 365–71
Murray, A S, Wintle, A G, & Wallinga, J, 2002 Dose estimation using quartz
OSL in the non-linear region of the growth curve, Radiation Protection
Dosimetry, 101, 371–4
Perry, L, 2004 Starch analyses reveal the relationship between tool type and
Reynier, M, 2002 Kettlebury 103: A Mesolithic ‘Horsham’ type stone assemblage
from Hankley Common, Elstead, SyAC, 89, 211–31
Reynier, M, 2005 Early Mesolithic Britain, origins, development and directions,
Brit Archaeol Rep, 393
Robins, P, 1998 Mesolithic sites at Two Mile Bottom, near Thetford, Norfolk,
in Ashton et al 1998, 205–21
Roseveare, M, 2007 Excavation of a Mesolithic hollow at North Park Farm, nr
Bletchingley, Surrey: geophysical survey report, unpublished report by
ArchaeoPhysica
Schweingruber, F H, 1990 Microscopic wood anatomy, Birmensdorf, Swiss Federal
Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research
Scott, E M, 2003 The third international radiocarbon intercomparison (TIRI)
and the fourth international radiocarbon intercomparison (FIRI)
function: an example from the Orinoco valley of Venezuela, J Archaeol
1990–2002: results, analyses, and conclusions, Radiocarbon, 45,
Sci, 31, 1069–81
135–408
Piperno, D R, & Holst, I, 1998 The presence of starch grains on prehistoric
Selkirk, A, 1979 Broom Hill, Braishfield, Current Archaeol, 69, 317–19
stone tools from the humid neotropics: indications of early tuber use
Shackley, M L, 1974 Stream abrasion of flint implements, Nature, 248, 501–2
and agriculture in Panama, J Archaeol Sci, 25, 765–76
Sidell, J, Cotton, J, Rayner, L, & Wheeler, L, 2002 The prehistory and
Poulton, R, 1998 The lost manor of Hextalls, Little Pickle, Bletchingley,
archaeological investigations, Surrey County Archaeol Unit Monograph
Poulton, R, Hayman, G & Branch, N, 2005 A project design for the excavation of a
topography of Southwark and Lambeth, Mus London Archaeol Services
Monogr, 14
Slota, Jr P J, Jull, A J T, Linick, T W, & Toolin, L J, 1987 Preparation of small
Mesolithic hollow at North Park Farm Quarry, Bletchingley, Surrey, Project
samples for 14C accelerator targets by catalytic reduction of CO,
Design submitted to English Heritage
Radiocarbon, 29, 303–6
Poulton, R, Jones, P, Branch, N, et al 2006 An updated project design for
the excavation of a Mesolithic hollow at North Park Farm Quarry,
Bletchingley, Surrey, An Updated Project Design submitted to English
Heritage
Prescott, J R, & Hutton, J T, 1994 Cosmic ray contributions to dose rates
for luminescence and ESR dating: large depths and long-term time
variations, Radiation Measurements, 23, 497–500
Radley, J, Tallis, J H, & Switsur, V R, 1974 The excavation of three ‘narrow
Smith, B W, Rhodes, E J, Stokes S, & Spooner, N A, 1990 The optical dating
of sediments using quartz, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 34, 75–8
Spooner, N A, 1993 The validity of optical dating based on feldspar, Unpublished
D Phil thesis, Oxford University
Spikins, P, 2000 Ethno-facts or ethno-fiction? Searching for the structure of
settlement patterns, in Young 2000, 105–18
Spikins, P, 2002 Prehistoric people of the Pennines. Reconstructing the lifestyles of
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers on Marsden Moor
blade’ Mesolithic sites in the southern Pennines, England, Proc Prehist
Stace, C, 1997 New flora of the British Isles, 2nd ed
Soc, 40, 1–19
Stuiver, M, & Kra, R S, 1986 Editorial comment, Radiocarbon, 28 (2B), ii
Radley, J, and Mellars, P A, 1964 A Mesolithic structure at Deepcar, Yorkshire,
England, and the affinities of its associated flint industry, Proc Prehist
Soc, 30, 1–24
Rankine, W F, 1936 A Mesolithic site in Farnham, SyAC, 44, 24–46
Rankine, W F, 1946 Some remarkable flints from West Surrey Mesolithic sites,
SyAC, 49, 6–19
Rankine, W F, 1949 A Mesolithic survey of the West Surrey Greensand, SyAS
Res Paper, 2
Rankine, W F, 1952 Mesolithic research in Surrey: with a tribute to Wilfrid
Hooper LLD; FSA, SyAC, 52, 1–10
Reimer, P J, Baillie, M G L, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, J W, Bertrand, C,
Blackwell, P G, Buck, C E, Burr, G, Cutler, K B, Damon, P E,
Edwards, R L, Fairbanks, R G, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, T P,
Hughen, K A, Kromer, B, McCormac, F G, Manning, S, Bronk
Ramsey, C, Reimer, R W, Remmele, S, Southon, J R, Stuiver, M,
Talamo, S, Taylor, F W, van der Plicht, J, & Weyhenmeyer, C E, 2004
IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 Cal Kyr BP,
Radiocarbon, 46, 1029–58
Reynier, M, 1997 Excavations at Kettlebury 103: an Early Mesolithic flint
Stuiver, M, & Polach, H A, 1977 Reporting of 14C data, Radiocarbon, 19,
355–63
Stuiver, M, & Reimer, P J, 1986 A computer program for radiocarbon age
calculation, Radiocarbon, 28, 1022–30
Stuiver, M, & Reimer, P J, 1993 Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0
C age calibration program, Radiocarbon, 35, 215–30
14
Stenhouse, M J, & Baxter, M S, 1983 14C dating reproducibility: evidence
from routine dating of archaeological samples, PACT, 8, 147–61
Stokes, S, Ingram, S, Aitken, M J, Sirocko, F, & Anderson, R, 2003 Alternative
chronologies for late Quaternary (Last Interglacial-Holocene) deep
sea sediments via optical dating of silt-sized quartz, Quaternary Sci
Reviews, 22, 925–41
Taylor, J A, (ed) 1980 Culture and environment in prehistoric Wales, Brit
Archaeol Rep, 76
Templer, R H, 1985 The removal of anomalous fading in zircon, Nuclear tracks
and radiation measurements, 10, 531–7
Toms, P S, 2005 Luminescence dating for the Bletchingley excavations, Surrey,
Centre for Archaeol Rep, 9/2005
Vandeputte, K, Moens, L, & Dams, R, 1996 Improved sealed-tube combustion
scatter on Hankley Common, interim report, SyAS Bulletin, 310,
of organic samples to CO2 for stable isotopic analysis, radiocarbon
10–12
dating and percent carbon determinations, Analytical Letters, 29, 2761
119
A MESOLITHIC ‘PERSISTENT PLACE’ AT NORTH PARK FARM, BLETCHINGLEY, SURREY
Waddington, C, (ed), 2007 Mesolithic settlement in the North Sea basin. A case
study from Howick, north-east England
Waddington, C, & Pedersen, K, (eds), 2007 Mesolithic studies in the North Sea
basin and beyond. Proceedings of a conference held at Newcastle in 2003
Wallinga, J, Murray, A S, Duller, G A T, & Tornqvist, T E, 2001 Testing
optically stimulated luminescence dating of sand-sized quartz and
feldspar from fluvial deposits, Earth and Planetary Sci Letters, 193,
617–30
Ward, G K, & Wilson, S R, 1978 Procedures for comparing and combining
radiocarbon age determinations: a critique, Archaeometry, 20, 19–31
Warren, G, 2006 Technology, in Conneler and Warren, 13–34
Warren, G, 2007 An archaeology of the Mesolithic in eastern Scotland:
deconstructing culture, constructing identity, in Waddington &
Pedersen 2007, 137–50
Winser, K D, 1987 Prehistoric flint sites at Sandy Meadow, Wotton, SyAC, 78,
184–7
Wintle, A G, 1973 Anomalous fading of thermoluminescence in mineral
samples, Nature, 245, 143–4
Wintle, A G, & Aitken, M J, 1977 Thermoluminescence dating of burnt flint:
application to a lower Palaeolithic site, Terra Amata, Archaeometry, 19,
111–30
120
Wymer, J, 1962 Excavations at the Maglemosian sites at Thatcham, Berkshire,
England, Proc Prehist Soc, 28, 329–61
Young, R, 1998 No carefree life for Mesolithic people, British Archaeol, 33
Young, R, (ed) 2000 Mesolithic lifeways: Current research from Britain and
Ireland, Leicester Archaeol Monogr, 7, Univ of Leicester
Xu, S, Anderson, R, Bryant, C, Cook, G T, Dougans, A, Freeman, S,
Naysmith, P, Schnabel, C, & Scott, E M, 2004 Capabilities of the new
SUERC 5MV AMS facility for 14C dating, Radiocarbon, 46, 59–64
Zimmerman, D W, 1971 Thermoluminescent dating using fine grains from
pottery, Archaeometry, 13, 29–52
TABLES
72
Table 3.1 Context listing
context
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7
(8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(16
(17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(47
48
49
50
51
(52
53
square
all
all
all
F4-E7
E9
E9
K6
K6
K6
K6
K6
F5/F6
D7
D7
D7
G5
D7
F6
D7
G1
F5-G1
E7-D9
E9-E10
F6
E9
F5/F6
C5
C5
D9
D9
D9
D9
D9
E8
E8
E9
E9
E9
K6
F9
F9
K6
F9
F9
Areas
MED
MED
6
3
3
3
3
3
MED
MED
6
1
1
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
description
unstratified
plough soil
buried plough soil
causeway
storage pit (whole pot)
pit/ph
=79)
=28, 29)
ditch, NE/SW, inc 16. joins 12
ditch, NW/SE, inc 17. joins 11
gully. joins 14
gully. joins 13
recut of ditch 79
segment of 11)
segment of 12)
transitional layer
burnt flint scatter, above 26.
burnt flint scatter
burnt flint scatter
tree-throw hollow
pit
tree-throw hollow
pit, below 19
pit, at N end of ditch 28
ditch, N/S, inc 97. =8
ditch, N/S, inc 86, 87. =8
hearth pit
tree-throw hollow
ph
tree-throw hollow
transitional layer
tree-throw hollow
‘woodland soil’ layer. =52, 151
pit
sh?
pit
pit
pit with carstones
pit
pit
pit
pit
pit
segment of 50)
pit
pit
gully
pit
‘woodland soil’ layer. =36)
pit
Page 1 of 4
date
modern
LM/PM
LM or EPM
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
medieval
medieval
medieval
medieval
medieval
mesolithic
Mesolithic or later
Mesolithic or later
Mesolithic or later
prehist or later
Mesolithic or later
prehist or later
Mesolithic or later
12th C
12th C
12th C
L11th/E12th
prehist or later
L11th/E12th
prehist or later
Mesolithic
prehist or later
medieval
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
medieval
L11th/E12th
L11th/E12th
context
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
(72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
(86
(87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
(97
(98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
(108
square
F9
C5/6
C5/6
F5/6
F5/6
I2
C5/6
H1
I3
I3
I3
I3
I3
I3
I3
G6
I3
H9
F5/6
H3
J3
J3
F6
F3/G3
F3
I5
I5
I5
I5
G3
I5
G6
I5
I5
I5
I5
I5
K/L2
K/L2
I5
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
I2
H2
F6
C5
E4
Areas
MED
1
1
6
6
1
6
6
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
5
1
-
description
pit
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow, =72, 76
pit
clean sand layer, below 34
pit
pit
pit
pit
pit
pit
FALSE
cremation pit
tree-throw hollow
pit
pit
sample through 58)
pit
pit
cremation pit
tree-throw hollow. =58
pit
posthole
ditch, inc 98, 108, 118. = 8
tree-throw hollow
hollow =96, 127/143.
sand layer, below 82.
hollow
tree-throw hollow
segment through 29)
segment through 29)
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
hollow
beam slot
beam slot
hollow =82, 127/143
segment of 28)
segment of 79)
pit
pit
pit
pit
pit
pit
pit
clean sand layer
podsolised layer
segment of 79)
Page 2 of 4
date
L11th/E12th
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
LBA
Mesolithic
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
nat
LBA
prehist or later
LBA
medieval
LBA
LBA
LBA
prehist or later
?
12th C
12th C
prehist or later
LBA
Mesolithic
LBA
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
LBA
PM
PM
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
LBA
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
-
context
109
110
(111
112
113
114
115
116
117
(118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
square
E5
H5
H5
H5
H5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
F6
F3
I5
F5/6
I4
I4
I4
I4
F3
E3
D3
C4
B6
B6
C7
D8
G7
C3/4
B3/4
I4
F7/8
I4
Areas
6
7, 10, 11
9
6
10
10
10
10
2
2
3
3
10
4
10
142
(143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
(151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
H4
I4/H4
D3
D3/E3
J4
J4
F6
F6
F5
F7/8
F7/8
F7/8
F8
F8
F5
F5
F5
I4, J4
J6
F5
F6
10
10
2
10
10
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
7, 10
11
6
6
description
ditch
tree-throw hollow, inc 111
part of 110)
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
seg of 79)
clean sand layer
pit
transitional sand layer
hearth
?feature
hearth
?feature
hearth
hollow. =143
burnt flint scatter
burnt flint scatter
burnt flint scatter
burnt flint scatter
burnt flint scatter
burnt flint scatter
burnt flint scatter
burnt flint scatter
pit
track gully, inc 186
track gully, inc 188, 189, 190
hearth. =198
struck flint scatter
hearth
date
medieval
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
prehist or later
Mesolithic
LBA
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
LBA
Mesolithic
LBA
Mesolithic or later
Mesolithic or later
Mesolithic or later
Mesolithic or later
Mesolithic or later
Mesolithic or later
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
LBA
medieval
medieval
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
ph
=127)
?feature
struck flint scatter
possible hearth
possible hearth
tree-throw hollow
?feature
tree-throw hollow
=36)
layer
clean sand
natural Folkestone sands
?feature
hearth
grey cone
flint concentration
transitional layer
hearth pit
grey cone
grey cone
?Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
prehistoric or later
?Mesolithic
prehistoric or later
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
natural
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Page 3 of 4
context
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
(172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
(185
(186
187
(188
(189
(190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
(198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
square
J6
J6
F5
H4
J6
F5
J6
F6
I4
I4
J6
J6
J6
J6
I4
I4
I4
J6
J6
J6
J6
J6
J6
C3/4
J6
C3/4
C3/4
C3/4
D5
I4
J4
J4
I4
I4
I4
I4
I4
I3
G6
H6
J6
H6
J6
H6
H6
-
Areas
11
11
6
10
11
6
11
6
10
10
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
10
19
11
description
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
?stakehole
clean sand layer, over 141
grey cone
grey cone
grey cone
?feature
posthole, inc 172
fill of 171)
hearth
transition layer
grey cone
grey cone
clean sand layer, over 126
pit
date
prehist or later
prehist or later
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
LBA
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
hearth
grey cone
grey cone
clean sand layer
grey cone, inc 185
grey ‘horizon’
=183)
segment of 137)
clean sand layer
segment of 138)
part of 188)
part of 188)
pit
clean sand layer, over 124
clean sand layer, over 146
clean sand layer, over 147
clean sand layer, over 198
grey patch
clean sand layer, over 196
= 139)
hearthstones of 124
linear feature, within 74
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
hearthstones/burnt flints in 160
tree-throw hollow
clean sand, over 161, 157
tree-throw hollow
tree-throw hollow
grey ‘blob’
grey ‘blob’
burnt flints, in 183/5
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
LM
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
LBA
prehist or later
prehist or later
Mesolithic
prehist or later
Mesolithic
prehist or later
prehist or later
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Page 4 of 4
Table 4.1: Details of monolith samples
Sample
number
Area
no
Section
no
<RH4>
<RH5>
<RH6>
<RHA1>
<RH9upper>
<RH9lower>
<RH1upper>
<RH2lower>
<RH12>
10
7
6
9
NA
NA
11
11
11
4
5
6
8
9
9
10
10
12
Elevation (m OD)
(taken on line
level; see Figures 1
to 14)
112.785
112.449
112.493
112.231
112.494
112.494
112.166
112.166
XXXXXXXXXX
Table
number
Figure
number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2, 3
4, 5
6, 7
8, 9
10, 11
10, 11
12, 13
12, 13
14, 15
Table 4.2: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 4 (south facing), area 10, monolith sample
<RH4>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
number
0.00 -0.20 159
10YR 7/2 light grey with faint rusty mottles; well-sorted slightly silty
fine sand with occasional coarse sand grains; slightly blocky; rare root
channels and roots; a few small (<1mm) particles of charcoal; no acid
reaction; well-marked change of coherence to:
0.20-0.30
126
10YR 7/2 light grey; well-sorted free-running fine sand with occasional
coarse sand grains and clasts of burnt flint (up to 40mm), becoming
more clayey, browner and more coherent in the lowest few millimetres;
massive; very small ?charcoal; no acid reaction; sharp colour change to:
0.30-0.50
121
10YR 8/1 white; free-running fine sand with occasional coarse sand
grains and scattered clasts (up to 28mm) of sharply angular flint; slightly
darker horizon at 039-042 with two flint clasts; no acid reaction
Table 4.3: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 5 (east facing), area 7, monolith sample
<RH5>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
Number
0.00-0.17
36
10YR 5/4 yellowish brown, becoming paler downward; well-sorted
slightly silty fine sand with occasional coarse sand grains; massive; no
acid reaction; gradual patchy colour transition to:
0.17-0.22
18
10YR 7/2 light grey; well-sorted fine sand with occasional coarse sand
grains; massive; no acid reaction; gradual colour transition to:
0.22-0.50
106/121
10YR 8/1 white with brown patches in upper 10cm and rusty staining at
lower levels; very well-sorted ; free-running fine sand with occasional
coarse sand grains; massive; fresh flake (16mm) of flint cortex at 027,
(no typical impact features); no acid reaction
1
Table 4.4: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 6 (east facing), area 6, monolith sample
<RH6>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
number
0.00-0.16
36
10YR 3/4 dark yellowish brown becoming patchily paler downward;
well-sorted silty fine sand with occasional coarse sand grains and a small
(4mm) chalk clast at 003; massive; infrequent roots in uncoated root
channels; no acid reaction; gradual patchy colour transition to:
0.16-0.33
18
Gradual transition from 10YR 3/4 (overlying) to 10YR 8/1 white
(underlying), transition faintly layered in upper part of transition passing
down to downward penetration of darker colour in narrow root-like
forms; no acid reaction; gradual transition to
0.33-0.50
106
10YR 8/1 white; very well-sorted free-running fine sand with occasional
coarse sand grains with a single fragment (28mm) of well-rounded flint
pebble; massive; burnt flint at 033-034; no acid reaction
Table 4.5: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 8 (south facing), area 9, monolith sample
<RHA1>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
number
0.00-0.17
Separate piece of 'cemented' sand approximately 110 x 70mm; 7.5R 4/2
to 3/2 weak red to dusky red; fine sand with occasional coarse sand
grains; interstitial silty clay appears to have been fired; quasi-dendritic
precipitation of iron oxide on parts of outer surface of sand body; no acid
reaction
0.17-0.27
122
10YR 4/2 dark greyish brown, well-sorted fine to medium sand with
occasional coarse sand grains; no acid reaction; patchy colour transition
(possibly conglomeratic mixture) to:
0.27-0.50
121
10YR 7/1 light grey with darker patches; well-sorted fine sand with
occasional coarse sand grains; faint indication of slightly inclined
bedding; no acid reaction
Table 4.6: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 9 (west facing), monolith sample
<UpperRH9>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
number
0.00-0.22
Plough
10YR 3/4 dark greyish brown; moderately sorted silty fine sand; with
soil
flint clasts (up to 13mm) slight crumb/blocky structure; roots common in
uncoated root channels; particles of CBM; no acid reaction; gradual
transition to:
0.22-0.50
Colluvium 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown; well-sorted slightly silty fine sand with
broken piece of well-rounded flint pebble; massive; occasional roots in
uncoated root channels; worm burrows; occasional CBM; scattered chalk
particles (up to 6mm); no acid reaction from body of sediment
2
Table 4.7: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 9 (west facing), monolith sample
<LowerRH9>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
number
0.00-0.20
Colluvium 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown; well-sorted slightly silty fine to medium
sand; very porous and slightly blocky; occasional roots in uncoated root
channels; worm burrows (up to 5mm diam); no acid reaction; wellmarked colour transition to:
0.20-0.34
36
Patchy mix of 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown and 10YR 8/1 white, with
intermediate mixtures; well-sorted slightly silty fine to medium sand
with scattered well-rounded flint pebbles (up to 30mm); massive and
very porous; occasional roots in uncoated root channels; occasional
worm burrows; no acid reaction; well-marked colour transition to:
0.34-0.50
106/121
Mainly 10YR 8/1 white with rusty staining but penetrated by worm
burrows introducing 10YR 5/4 from above; very well sorted fine sand
with broken pieces of well-rounded flint pebble (up to 34mm);
occasional worm burrows; very infrequent particles of charcoal; no acid
reaction
Table 4.8: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 10 (north facing), area 11, monolith sample
<RH1upper>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
number
0.00-0.22
175
10YR 7/1 light grey (uneven colour); well-sorted fine sand with
occasional coarse sand grains with broken piece (35mm) of well-rounded
flint pebble (angles damaged and subsequently polished); massive; no
acid reaction; gradual colour transition to:
0.22-0.30
175
5YR 6/1 grey/light grey; well-sorted fine sand with occasional coarse
sand grains and broken piece (15mm) of well-rounded flint pebble;
massive; no acid reaction; well-marked colour transition to:
0.30-0.50
160
10YR 3/1 very dark grey; well-sorted fine sand with clast of burnt flint
(30mm) displaying preferential accumulation of dark ?organic matter
and weak cementation on upper side of clast; faint indication of slightly
inclined bedding marked by slight textural variations; no acid reaction
Table 4.9: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 10 (north facing), area 11, monolith sample
<RH2lower>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
number
0.00-0.18
void
0.18-0.26
160
10YR5/1 grey (uneven colour); well-sorted fine sand with occasional
coarse sand grains and clast (15mm) of burnt flint at 019; massive; no
acid reaction; sharp transition to:
0.26-0.40
182
10YR8/1 white; well-sorted free-running fine sand with occasional
coarse sand grains; massive; no acid reaction; gradual colour transition
to:
0.40-0.45
?
10YR5/1 grey (grading downward from light to dark); well-sorted fine
sand with occasional coarse sand grains; grading downward from freerunning to weakly cemented; no acid reaction; sharp colour transition to:
0.45-0.50
?
10YR8/1 white well-sorted free-running fine sand with occasional coarse
sand grains; massive; no acid reaction
3
Table 4.10: Lithostratigraphic sequence from section 12 (east facing), area 11, monolith sample
<RH12>
Depth
Context
Description
(m)
number
0.00-0.16
36
10YR 5/4 yellowish brown with rusty mottles/staining; well-sorted silty
fine sand with occasional coarse sand grains; slightly blocky; occasional
roots in uncoated root channels; no acid reaction; well-marked colour
transition to:
0.16-0.29
18
10YR 7/2 light grey; well-sorted very slightly silty fine sand with
occasional coarse sand grains and cluster of three clasts (well-rounded
flint pebble (16mm), burnt flint (10mm), sub-angular flint (50mm);
massive; no acid reaction; well-marked colour transition to:
0.29-0.50
106/121
10YR 8/1 white; very well-sorted free-running fine sand with occasional
coarse sand grains and a clast of burnt flint (20mm) at 49-50mm and a
clast of Lower Greensand cherty sandstone (10mm); massive; no acid
reaction
Table 4.11: Samples, contexts, sections and areas selected for soil micromorphology
Sample
number
Context number
Section number
Area number
<RH4>
159
126 - 121 (Across boundary)
36
18
106/121
36 - 18 (Across boundary)
18 - 106 (Across boundary)
122 - 121 (Across boundary)
Colluvium/Aeolian/Anthropoge
nic deposit
36
175
160 - 182 (Across boundary)
Black layer in 182
18
Dark lens
4
10
5
7
6
6
8
9
9
NA
10
10
11
11
12
13
11
Northern Geology
Trench
<K1>
<K2>
<K3>
<RH6>
<RHA1>
<KO1>
<KO2>
<K4>
<RH2lower>
<K10>
<RH12>
<2.1>
4
Table 5.1 Flintwork totals by Area
TOTAL NOS.
Area
Cores Irregular Waste Core dressings Flakes Fragments Blades Blade Fragments
2002 Excavation 160
71
113
1552
3227
519
1083
Area 1
5
1
6
133
106
60
132
Area 2
1
13
9
82
97
37
110
Area 3
2
1
20
35
17
76
Area 4
57
38
110
1062
1229
367
1014
Area 5
2
6
48
52
15
47
Area 6
81
22
199
2557
3458
854
2606
Area 7
1
3
14
46
8
52
Area 8
4
2
10
52
100
13
41
Area 9
18
29
344
594
66
369
Area 10
125
19
239
3539
4823
743
3493
Area 11
10
6
33
479
1132
117
515
Area 12
9
92
107
30
79
All Other
64
1
56
187
166
100
161
TOTAL
529
174
823
10161
15172
2946
9778
%
1.2%
0.4%
1.9%
23.5%
35.1%
6.8%
22.6%
Modified & Spalls Microliths Microburins
212
196
67
13
11
10
3
7
2
10
6
294
78
25
10
2
494
233
134
3
1
16
3
1
142
39
20
575
344
157
134
87
32
14
9
5
256
12
6
2176
1028
459
5%
2.4%
1.1%
Total
Chips
7200
8837
477
2104
361
10
167
26
4274
2501
182
1
10638
4945
128
2
242
4
1621
964
14057
1634
2545
704
345
99
1009
22
43246 21853
100.0% 50.5%
Burnt
2217
75
98
61
828
14
1226
11
117
216
2135
524
49
72
7643
17.7%
Total % by Area
Area
Cores Irregular Waste Core dressings Flakes Fragments Blades Blade Fragments
2002 Excavation 2.2
1
1.6
21.6
44.8
7.2
15
Area 1
1
0.2
1.3
27.9
22.2
12.6
27.7
Area 2
0.3
3.6
2.5
22.7
26.9
10.2
30.5
Area 3
1.2
0.6
12
21
10.1
45.5
Area 4
1.3
0.9
2.6
24.8
28.8
8.6
23.7
Area 5
1.1
3.3
26.4
28.6
8.2
25.8
Area 6
0.8
0.2
1.9
24
32.5
8
24.5
Area 7
0.8
2.3
10.9
35.9
6.3
40.7
Area 8
1.7
0.8
4.1
21.5
41.3
5.5
16.9
Area 9
1.1
1.7
21.2
36.5
4.1
22.8
Area 10
0.9
0.1
1.7
25.2
34.3
5.3
24.8
Area 11
0.4
0.2
1.3
18.8
44.5
4.6
20.2
Area 12
2.6
26.7
31
8.7
22.9
All Other
6.3
0.1
5.6
18.5
16.5
9.8
16
Mean
1.5
0.8
2.4
21.6
31.8
7.8
25.5
Modified & Spalls Microliths Microburins
3
2.7
0.9
2.7
2.3
2.1
0.8
1.9
0.6
6
3.6
6.9
1.8
0.6
5.5
1.1
4.6
2.2
1.3
2.3
0.8
6.6
1.2
0.4
8.8
2.6
1.2
4.2
2.4
1.1
5.3
3.4
1.3
4.1
2.6
1.4
25.4
1.2
0.6
6.2
2.1
1.0
Total %
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Burnt
13.8
2.9
25.8
30.3
12.2
7.3
7.9
7.9
45.9
8.3
13.6
16.1
10.8
7
15.0
Chips
55.1
81.5
2.7
13.5
36.9
0.5
31.7
1.5
1.6
37.3
10.4
21.7
22.3
2.1
22.8
Table 5.2 Chip totals by area
Area
Chip Total
2002
8837
Area 1
2104
Area 2
10
Area 3
26
Area 4
2501
Area 5
1
Area 6
4945
Area 7
2
Area 8
4
Area 9
964
Area 10
1634
Area 11
704
Area 12
99
All Other
10
TOTAL
21841
% of all flintwork % of flintwork in re-sorted samples
55.1
81.5
81.5
3
13
36.9
78
0.5
32
70
1
2
37
67
10
82
22
68?
22
1
Re-sorted Bulk Samples
79
0
0
7
0
26
0
0
22
1
1
0
0
136
Bulk Sample Totals
169
79
0
0
7
0
206
0
0
46
93
119
0
0
719
% Re-sorted
100
100
13
48
1
1
Total m. sqs.
36
16
19
9
38
2
60
2
11
33
143
11
100
480
Total m.sqs. Bulk Sampled
27
16
0
0
2
1
35
0
0
27
30
10
0
0
148
Table 5.3 Flintwork totals by principal context type (excluding chips)
Context type
Cores Irregular waste Core dressings
WOODLAND SOIL
69
24
105
TRANSITIONAL LAYER
61
16
128
CLEAN NATURAL SAND
98
30
275
GREY CONES
3
2
17
MESOLITHIC/LATER BURNT FLINT SCATTERS
HEARTHS
4
8
LBA FEATURES
5
3
PREHISTORIC/LATER TREE-THROW HOLLOWS
14
3
31
MEDIEVAL FEATURES
5
6
LATE MEDIEVAL/POST-MED FEATURES
2
UNDATED/UNSTRATIFIED
59
1
48
TOTAL 318
76
623
Flakes
1204
1858
3798
183
2
102
18
366
45
3
154
7733
Fragments
1329
2711
5329
339
%
Context type
WOODLAND SOIL
TRANSITIONAL LAYER
CLEAN NATURAL SAND
GREY CONES
MESOLITHIC/LATER BURNT FLINT SCATTERS
HEARTHS
LBA FEATURES
PREHISTORIC/LATER TREE-THROW HOLLOWS
MEDIEVAL FEATURES
LATE MEDIEVAL/POST-MED FEATURES
UNDATED/UNSTRATIFIED
Flakes
27.7%
24.1%
24.6%
21.3%
40.0%
22.9%
20.9%
22.1%
19.7%
10.0%
18.2%
Fragments
30.6%
35.2%
34.6%
39.5%
Cores Irregular waste Core dressings
1.6%
0.6%
2.4%
0.8%
0.2%
1.7%
0.6%
0.2%
1.8%
0.3%
0.2%
2.0%
0.9%
5.8%
0.8%
2.2%
7.0%
0.2%
0.1%
1.8%
3.5%
1.9%
2.6%
6.7%
5.7%
182
19
538
54
2
176
10679
40.8%
22.1%
32.5%
23.6%
6.7%
20.8%
Blades
318
494
1088
44
1
18
4
99
24
3
76
2169
Blade fragments
801
1870
3571
199
1
100
7
412
50
3
129
7143
Modified & spalls
352
283
681
36
Microliths
94
189
370
29
15
29
139
44
17
183
1779
14
739
8
365
Blades
7.3%
6.4%
7.1%
5.1%
20.0%
4.0%
4.7%
6.0%
10.5%
10.0%
9.0%
Blade fragments
18.4%
24.3%
23.2%
23.2%
20.0%
22.4%
8.1%
24.9%
21.8%
10.0%
15.2%
Modified & spalls
8.1%
3.7%
4.4%
4.2%
Microliths
2.2%
2.5%
2.4%
3.4%
3.4%
33.7%
8.4%
19.2%
56.7%
21.6%
2.7%
Microburins
1.6%
1.2%
1.1%
0.8%
20.0%
1.1%
1.2%
1.5%
12
30
1
1.8%
0.4%
1.7%
Microburins
49
92
177
7
1
5
1
25
0.9%
Total
4603
7725
15669
859
5
446
86
1657
229
30
848
32157
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
%
14.30%
24%
48.70%
2.69%
0.02%
1.40%
0.30%
5.20%
0.69%
0.10%
2.60%
100.00%
Table 5.4 Flint totals by spit (excluding chips)
Spit 1
2002 Excavation
1343
Area 1
259
Area 2
285
Area 3
140
Area 4
1948
Area 5
47
Area 6
3759
Area 7
55
Area 8
106
Area 9
504
Area 10
5086
Area 11
263
Area 12
340
Total 14135
% 37.3%
Spit 2
848
60
75
25
1416
27
2350
31
Spit 3
810
13
1
Spit 4
761
6
Spit 5
417
0
Spit 6
357
Spit 7
326
Spit 8
260
Spit 9
159
620
38
1401
33
200
47
728
9
279
3751
284
195
2546
338
9146
24.2%
5995
15.8%
Spit 10 Spit 11 Spit 12 Spit 13 Spit 14 Spit 15 Spit 16
164
201
66
15
3
1
1
25
314
77
55
24
9
0
170
1844
388
103
499
254
65
104
250
44
22
200
23
5
0
140
102
59
32
17
22
2
4153
11.0%
1612
4.3%
853
2.3%
647
1.7%
447
1.2%
275
0.7%
223
0.6%
234
0.6%
83
0.2%
37
0.1%
5
0.1%
1
1
0.0%
1
0.0%
Total
5732
338
361
165
4184
184
8717
128
106
1389
13852
2351
340
37847
100.1%
Table 5.4 Flint totals by spit (excluding chips)
North Park Farm 2002 & 2005 Flint totals by spit
5000
4500
4000
3500
Total no.
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Spit 1
Spit 2
Spit 3
Spit 4
Spit 5
Spit 6
Spit 7
Spit 8
Spit 9
Spit 10
Spit 11
Spit 12
Spit 13
Spit 14
Spit 15
Spit 16
1343
848
810
761
417
357
326
260
159
164
201
66
15
3
1
1
Area 1
259
60
13
6
0
Area 2
285
75
1
Area 3
140
25
Area 4
1948
1416
620
Area 5
47
27
38
47
25
Area 6
3759
2350
1401
728
314
77
55
24
9
0
Area 7
55
31
33
9
Area 8
106
23
5
0
1
140
102
59
32
17
22
2
2002 Excavation
200
504
279
195
170
103
65
44
Area 10
5086
3751
2546
1844
499
104
22
Area 11
263
284
338
388
254
250
200
Area 12
340
Area 9
Table 5.5 Core classification by Area
TOTAL
Area
Bl 1 Bl 2 opp Bl 2 ort
Bl 3
2002 Excavation
12
17
9
15
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
4
11
5
2
5
5
1
6
15
15
8
13
7
8
3
1
9
4
3
2
3
10
15
13
9
19
11
1
2
2
1
12
OTHER
8
9
9
5
TOTAL
72
65
43
64
% 14.0% 12.6%
8.3% 12.4%
Bl/fl
5
Fl 1
19
7
2
6
5
Fl 2 opp Fl 2 ort Fl 2 div
4
21
Fl 3
25
Fl/fl
5
2
2
4
1
5
2
Keel Tort
7
2
Other
6
Frg
13
2
3
1
1
3
11
2
24
4.7%
2
39
7.6%
Bl/fl
3.1
Fl 1
11.9
2
3
1
5
4
2
7
3
21
1
2
13
2.5%
1
40
7.8%
2
8
1.6%
8
62
12.0%
4
1
5
3
7
2
1
1
4
1
2
17
21
5
11
3.3% 4.1% 1.0% 2.1%
9
2
32
6.2%
Total
160
5
1
2
48
2
82
0
4
18
128
8
0
58
516
100%
Blade cores Flake cores Blt scar Pris Bl Pyr Bl Cyl Bl Pyr Fl Cube Fl
58
89
62
8
4
2
1
3
5
5
1
2
30
13
33
1
1
1
2
57
20
61
10
3
4
13
60
6
5
60
2
4
13
77
5
35
271
56.2%
20
211
43.8%
39
301
58.3%
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Bl Tot
39.5
100
Fl Tot
60.5
Blt scar Pris Bl Pyr Bl Cyl Bl Pyr Fl Cube Fl
38.8
5
2.5
1.3
0.6
1.9
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
3
9
2
1
9
1.7%
3
30
5.8%
8
1.6%
Bnt
4
Ab
48
5
Inc
57
3
1
25
7
5
36
16
Hi
109
4
1
2
40
2
71
Ctx
138
5
1
2
42
2
69
Mn Wt.(g)
109.2
73.6
183
83.6
57.8
30
70.1
2
11
45
5
4
21
2
3
17
96
7
3
16
106
6
45.5
71.4
63.9
65.3
63.8
78.8
1
2
5
6
2
0.4%
2
12
2.3%
4
22
4.3%
27
205
39.7%
19
126
24.4%
51
403
78.1%
43
433
83.9%
Bnt
2.5
Ab
30
100
Inc
35.6
Ctx
86.3
100
100
100
87.5
100
83.1
%
Area
2002 Excavation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
OTHER
Bl 1
7.5
40
Bl 2 opp Bl 2 ort
10.6
5.6
20
Bl 3
9.4
40
Fl 2 opp Fl 2 ort Fl 2 div
2.5
13.1
Fl 3
15.6
Fl/fl
3.1
4.2
4.2
8.3
1.2
6.1
2.4
Keel Tort
4.4 1.3
Other
3.8
Frg
8.1
4.2
6.3
100
22.9
50
18.3
50
10.3
4.2
50
10.3
14.6
4.2
15.9
7.3
6.1
18.3
9.8
75
22.1
11.8
12.5
16.7
10.2
25
25
11.1
7
25
16.7
14.8
12.5
5.6
2.3
8.6
13.8
15.5
15.5
8.6
3.5
3.5
2.4
6.3
50
6.1
3.1
11.1
5.5
2.3
16.4
12.5
3.1
12.5
3.5
1.7
3.5
13.8
1.7
6.1
16.7
5.5
1.6
0.8
7
6.9
1.7
3.4
3.4
6.3
50
52.1
14.6
6
43.4
19.3
Hi
68.1
80
100
100
83.3
100
85.5
50
61.1
34.4
62.5
22.2
16
25
75
94.1
73.3
87.5
75
88.9
81.7
75
47.4
33.3
87.9
74.1
100
100
62.5
50
74
27.2
50
26
100
68.8
100
75.3
100
59
46
75
41
45
25
100
72.2
59
62.5
57.9
35
68.4
2.1
12
0.8
16.7
6.9
5.3
3.6
11.1
0.8
11.1
3.8
4.6
3.5
7
Table 5.6 Core dressing classification by Area
Area
2002 Excavation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Other
TOTAL
%
Crested piece, bidirectional Crested piece, unidirectional Core tablet Partial platform renewal Core face renewal Plunging piece Other
4
30
16
28
21
8
5
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
23
9
43
23
2
6
3
1
1
1
7
65
16
54
26
21
8
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
2
4
1
12
5
3
2
4
53
18
88
26
26
22
2
4
21
4
2
6
2
1
2
10
8
11
19
7
22
192
77
272
134
75
45
2.7%
23.5%
9.4%
33.3%
16.4%
9.2%
5.5%
Total
112
6
8
1
109
6
197
3
10
29
237
33
9
57
817
100.0%
Burnt Fragments Flake
15
45
60
6
1
1
3
6
%
Area
2002 Excavation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Other
Mean %
Crested piece, bidirectional Crested piece, unidirectional Core tablet Partial platform renewal Core face renewal Plunging piece Other
3.6
26.8
14.2
25
18.8
7.1
4.5
33.3
50
16.7
25
12.5
25
12.5
25
100
2.8
21.1
8.3
39.4
21.1
1.8
5.5
50
16.6
16.7
16.7
3.6
33
8
27.4
13.2
10.7
4.1
33.3
33.4
33.3
10
30
50
10
6.9
13.8
3.4
41.4
17.3
10.3
6.9
1.7
22.4
7.6
37
11
11
9.3
6.1
12.1
63.6
12.1
6.1
66.7
22.2
11.1
3.5
17.5
14
19.4
33.3
12.3
3.7
24.9
13.9
35.6
21.9
18.7
9.2
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Burnt Fragments Flake
13
39.8
53.1
16.7
100
16.7
12.5
37.5
75
7
9
3
3
12
2
2
54
6.6%
6.4
4.6
30
10.3
5.1
6.1
3.5
10.8
45
1
82
1
3
12
99
11
3
12
323
39.5%
41.3
16.7
41.6
33.3
30
41.4
41.8
33.3
33.3
21.1
39.3
70
4
93
1
7
15
116
28
7
32
440
53.9%
64.2
66.7
47.2
33.3
70
51.7
48.9
84.8
77.8
56.1
57.3
Blade
36
4
2
1
35
3
95
1
1
11
104
5
1
23
322
39.4%
Cortex Hinged/stepped Abraded
58
36
59
1
5
1
3
Blade
31.9
66.7
25
100
32.1
50
48.2
33.3
10
37.9
43.9
15.2
11.1
40.4
39.0
Cortex Hinged/stepped Abraded
51.3
31.9
52.2
16.7
62.5
12.5
37.5
49
3
87
1
6
12
107
11
2
28
370
45.3%
45
50
44.2
33.3
60
41.4
45.1
33.3
22.2
49.1
42.6
20
1
50
1
6
5
53
5
2
16
196
24.0%
18.3
16.7
25.4
33.3
60
17.2
22.4
15.2
22.2
28.1
25.3
49
2
82
1
1
8
56
14
2
18
295
36.1%
45
33.3
41.6
33.3
10
27.6
23.6
42.4
22.2
31.6
33.4
Table 5.7 Microlith classification by Area
AREA Obliquely blunted Isosceles triangle Obliquely pointed Trapeze Rhomboid Lanceolate Convex backed Straight backed Rod Scalene triangle 4-sided Lunate Hollow based Inversely retouched Tanged Unclassified
2002 Excavation
22
1
1
3
2
75
5
13
3
1
1
6
2
61
Area 1
3
1
1
1
1
4
Area 2
6
1
Area 3
3
3
Area 4
5
1
54
6
1
4
1
6
Area 5
2
Area 6
30
1
1
6
13
104
4
4
3
12
55
Area 7
1
Area 8
2
1
Area 9
1
6
11
3
2
16
Area 10
30
7
11
5
80
5
32
19
5
8
8
134
Area 11
5
1
3
1
36
2
13
4
22
Area 12
3
1
1
4
Other
4
3
5
TOTAL
106
11
2
1
1
30
21
376
23
53
35
1
9
36
11
312
%
10.3
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.9
2
36.7
2.2
5.1
3.4
0.1
0.9
3.5
1.1
30.3
Total
196
11
7
6
78
2
233
1
3
39
344
87
9
12
1028
100
%
AREA Obliquely blunted Isosceles triangle Obliquely pointed Trapeze Rhomboid Lanceolate Convex backed Straight backed Rod Scalene triangle 4-sided Lunate Hollow based Inversely retouched Tanged Unclassified Total
2002 Excavation
11.2
0.5
0.5
1.5
1
38.3
2.6
6.6
1.5
0.5
0.5
3.1
1
31.1
99.9
Area 1
27.3
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
36.4
100.1
Area 2
Area 3
50
50
100
Area 4
6.4
1.3
69.2
7.7
1.3
5.1
1.3
7.7
100
Area 5
100
100
Area 6
12.9
0.4
0.4
2.6
5.6
44.6
1.7
1.7
1.3
5.2
23.6
100
Area 7
100
100
Area 8
67
33
100
Area 9
2.6
15.4
28.2
7.7
5.1
41
100
Area 10
8.7
2
3.2
1.5
23.3
1.5
9.3
5.5
1.5
2.3
2.3
39
100.1
Area 11
5.7
1.2
3.4
1.2
41.4
2.3
14.9
4.6
25.3
100
Area 12
33.3
11.1
11.1
44.4
99.9
Other
33.3
25
41.7
100
%
19
1.1
0.7
0.6
7.5
0.2
22.7
0.1
0.3
3.8
33.4
8.5
0.9
1.2
100
-
Table 5.8 Microlith attributes by Area
AREA Burnt Fragments Broken tips Intact bulbs Microburin scars Left lateralized Right lateralized
2002 Excavations 42
162
22
19
6
115
34
Area 1
7
2
1
1
8
3
Area 2 3
7
4
3
Area 3 3
4
4
1
Area 4 15
69
5
6
2
50
14
Area 5
1
1
Area 6 26
172
29
13
7
109
54
Area 7
1
1
Area 8 1
3
3
Area 9 6
26
5
3
1
18
7
Area 10 51
242
44
21
11
168
63
Area 11 11
57
3
2
2
46
13
Area 12 1
5
1
4
Other 2
8
1
2
7
3
TOTAL 161
764
111
67
31
538
195
Site % 16%
75%
11%
7%
3%
53%
19%
%
AREA Burnt Fragments Broken tips Intact bulbs Microburin scars Left lateralized Right lateralized
2002 Excavations 21
82.7
11.2
9.7
3.1
58.7
17.3
Area 1
63
37
9
9
73
27
Area 2 43
100
57
43
Area 3 50
67
67
17
Area 4 19
89
6
8
4
64
18
Area 5
50
50
Area 6 11
74
13
6
3
48
23
Area 7
100
100
Area 8 33
100
100
Area 9 16
70
14
8
3
49
19
Area 10 15
71
13
6
3
49
18
Area 11 13
66
3
2
2
53
15
Area 12 11
55
11
44
Other 17
67
8
17
58
25
Table 5.9 Microburin classification by area
Area
Proximal right Proximal left Proximal right miss-hit Proximal left miss-hit Distal right Distal left Distal right miss-hit Distal left miss-hit Double Double miss-hit Unclassified
2002 Excavations
34
1
5
3
1
4
2
2
1
6
2
2
1
1
3
4
5
14
1
2
1
5
6
52
19
25
2
4
6
2
5
1
1
3
7
8
1
9
10
2
3
1
1
1
10
79
3
27
4
2
22
1
3
4
3
11
17
5
1
4
2
1
12
4
Other
2
1
1
TOTAL
211
25
83
10
8
39
6
13
1
7
7
%
51.50%
6.10%
20.20%
2.40%
2%
9.50%
1.50%
3.20%
0.2
1.70%
1.70%
Total
52
8
2
0
23
0
120
0
1
18
148
30
4
4
410
-
Site % Broken Burnt
12.6
11
7
2
0.5
1
%
Area
Proximal right Proximal left Proximal right miss-hit Proximal left miss-hit Distal right Distal left Distal right miss-hit Distal left miss-hit Double Double miss-hit Unclassified
2002 Excavations
65.4
1.9
9.6
5.8
1.9
7.8
3.8
3.8
Area 1
75
25
Area 2
50
50
Area 4
22
61
4
9
4
Area 6
43.3
15.8
20.8
1.7
3.3
5
1.7
4.2
0.8
0.8
2.6
Area 8
100
Area 9
55.6
11
16.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
Area 10
53.3
2
18.1
2.7
1.4
14.8
0.7
2
3
2
Area 11
56.7
16.7
3.3
13.3
6.7
3.3
Area 12
100
Other
50
25
25
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Broken
21.2
5.6
2
29.3
20
8
0.2
4.4
36.1
7.3
1
1
100
-
1
3
31
7
1
7
1
2
50
8.7
16.7
100
16.7
20.9
23.3
25
66
25
18.80% 6.10%
Burnt
13.5
6.7
4.7
3.3
50
Table 5.10 Other tools & tool debitage classification by Area
Area
Axe Axe Sharpening Flake Arrowhead Burin Burin Spall Chamfered Piece Combination Tool Core/Burin Core/Scraper Denticulate Fabricator Hammerstone Knife Edge Modified Notch Polished Piece Piercer Misc.Retouched Scraper ?Sharpening Flake S
2002 Excavation
1
13
8
3
2
6
2
67
29
5
41
18
Area 1
1
1
8
1
1
1
Area 2
1
2
Area 3
1
7
1
1
1
Area 4
1
9
12
3
1
2
8
1
4
3
142
23
12
48
5
1
Area 5
3
3
1
Area 6
32
24
3
1
4
1
2
17
1
1
257
32
1
8
58
19
9
Area 7
1
1
Area 8
1
1
1
8
3
1
Area 9
2
2
3
1
2
1
75
11
4
20
8
Area 10
1
39
2
9
3
2
3
2
8
1
3
302
38
7
70
21
12
Area 11
1
3
4
2
2
2
1
68
14
5
18
4
2
Area 12
1
4
2
1
5
OTHER
1
4
1
13
3
2
1
1
3
2
4
125
26
2
7
28
18
Total 8
104
3
74
17
8
11
12
8
42
3
11
5
1067
181
5
48
295
96
25
% 0.4%
4.8%
0.1% 3.4%
0.8%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.4%
1.9%
0.1%
0.5%
0.2%
49.5%
8.4%
0.2%
2.2%
13.7%
4.5%
1.3%
Burnt total 0
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
30
5
0
0
30
7
3
Burnt % 0.0%
1.9%
0.0% 1.4%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
0.0%
2.8%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
10.2%
7.3%
12.0%
%
Area
2002 Excavation
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Area 5
Area 6
Area 7
Area 8
Area 9
Area 10
Area 11
Area 12
OTHER
Axe
0.5
Axe Sharpening Flake Arrowhead Burin Burin Spall Chamfered Piece Combination Tool Core/Burin Core/Scraper Denticulate Fabricator Hammerstone
6.3
3.8
1.4
1
2.9
1
7.7
7.7
8.3
0.3
6.3
1.4
0.2
0.7
0.4
3.1
4.2
1
0.3
0.7
2.8
0.3
1.4
6.5
4.9
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.4
3.4
0.2
6.3
2.1
1.6
3
0.5
1.5
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
0.7
0.2
1.5
5.2
1.2
0.8
6.3
1.4
6.9
2.2
7.1
1.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.2
1
0.7
0.5
0.8
Knife Edge Modified Notch Polished Piece Piercer Misc.Retouched Scraper ?Sharpening Flake S
32.3
13.8
2.4
19.7
8.7
61.5
7.7
7.7
7.7
33.3
66.7
58.3
8.4
8.3
8.4
49.5
8
4.2
16.7
1.7
0.4
30
30
10
0.2
52
6.5
0.2
1.6
11.7
3.8
1.8
33.3
33.4
50
18.5
6.3
52.8
7.7
2.8
14.1
5.6
53.3
6.7
1.2
12.3
3.7
2.1
50.4
10.4
3.7
13.3
3
1.5
28.6
14.3
7.1
35.8
1.6
50
10.4
0.8
2.8
11.2
7.2
Table 5.11 Other tool & tool debitage attributes by Area
Area
Burnt
Flake
Blade Proximal Frag Mesial Frag
2002 Excavation
11
89
82
38
15
Area 1
4
8
Area 2
1
1
Area 3
2
9
1
1
Area 4
9
92
121
44
20
Area 5
4
3
2
1
Area 6
22
161
248
79
44
Area 7
1
1
Area 8
9
4
Area 9
5
37
80
29
8
Area 10
23
194
278
105
41
Area 11
7
38
67
23
16
Area 12
7
2
2
4
OTHER
4
104
124
35
15
Total
82
743
1027
358
165
% 3.8% 34.5% 47.7%
16.6%
7.7%
%
Area
2002 Excavation
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Area 5
Area 6
Area 7
Area 8
Area 9
Area 10
Area 11
Area 12
OTHER
Burnt
5.3
33
3.1
4.5
3.5
4.1
5.2
1.6
Flake
42.8
30.8
66.7
16.7
32.1
40
32.6
33.3
56.3
26.1
34.2
28.1
50
40
Blade
39.4
61.5
75
42.2
30
50.2
33.3
25
56.3
49
49.6
14.3
49.6
Proximal Frag Mesial Frag
18.3
7.2
8.3
15.3
20
16
8.3
7
10
8.9
20.4
18.5
17
14.3
14
5.6
7.2
11.9
6
Distal Frag
43
2
Core
4
49
1
85
9
2
37
110
34
1
4
11
4
44
407
18.9%
3
40
1.9%
Distal Frag
20.7
15.4
Core
1.9
17.1
10
17.2
3
12.5
26.1
19.4
25.2
28.6
17.6
4
0.8
6.3
2.8
1.9
3
1.2
Table 5.12 Burnt flintwork totals by Area & lithic artefact category
TOTAL NOS.
Area
Cores
2002 Excavation
4
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
3
Area 5
Area 6
5
Area 7
Area 8
Area 9
Area 10
6
Area 11
Area 12
All Other
4
TOTAL
22
Overall % Burnt 4.30%
Total % by Area
Area
Cores
2002 Excavation
2.5
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
6.3
Area 5
Area 6
6
Area 7
Area 8
Area 9
Area 10
4.6
Area 11
Area 12
All Other
7
Mean
5.3
Core dressings Modified & Spalls Microliths
15
11
42
1
1
7
9
3
3
15
9
22
26
3
3
12
2
5
23
7
2
54
6.60%
4
82
3.80%
1
6
51
11
1
2
161
16.00%
Core dressings Modified & Spalls Microliths
13
5.3
21
16.7
12.5
33
43
50
6.4
3.1
19
4.6
4.5
30
10.3
5.1
6.1
3.5
4.1
5.2
3.5
10.8
1.6
7.5
Microburins
7
8
7
1
2
25
6.10%
Microburins
13.5
11
6.7
33
16
15
13
11
17
22.6
4.7
3.3
50
15.6
Other debitage
2138
75
93
58
794
14
1156
11
113
202
2036
503
46
60
7299
12.10%
Total burnt
2217
75
98
61
828
14
1226
11
117
216
2135
524
49
72
7643
11.70%
Other debitage
14
3
26.6
33.3
12.8
8.6
8
8.9
53.3
8.6
14.3
17
11.3
9.4
16.4
Total burnt %
13.8
2.9
25.8
30.3
12.2
7.3
7.9
7.9
45.9
8.3
13.6
16.1
10.8
7
15.0
Table 5.13 Flintwork chronological framework (all dates calendrical or derived from recalibration of radiocarbon dates)
EARLY
MESOLITHIC
PERIOD
TIMESCALE
c 10000-8000 BC
(late 10th–early 8th
millenium cal BC)
c 8500–7700 BC
(Gardiner nd after Jacobi
1978, 1981)
c 8000-7000 BC
(8th millenium cal BC
with overlaps)
(Gardiner nd after Jacobi
1978, 1981)
SURREY
FRAMEWORK
(ELLABY 1987)
Early Mesolithic
SURREY
SITES
Redhill
(Ellaby 1987)
St Catherine’s
Hill, Guildford
(Gabel 1976)
NATIONAL SITES
Star Carr (Clark 1971)
Deepcar
(Radley & Mellars 1964)
MICROLITH
TYPES
Oblique points (broad)
Large scalene triangles
Oblique points (narrow)
Kettlebury 103
(Reynier 2002;
Waddington
2007, 219)
(c 7000 cal
BC)
NORTH
PARK FARM
Double
Areas 1, 3
opposed
occasional eg
platform cores in other Areas
NPF MICROLITHS
Oblique points,
some large, all narrow
Double
1 Early oblique
opposed
point from
platform cores Bletchingley
Oakhanger (Waddington
2007, 219) c 8000 cal BC
Horsham Period
c 8200–7000 BC
OTHER
Simple end
scrapers
Horsham points,
isosceles triangles,
oblique points with
opposed retouch,
rhomboids?
Orthogonal &
diverse
platformed
cores,
occasional
‘helix’ types
Horsham points, oblique
point with opposed retouch,
isosceles triangles,
rhomboid?
Area 10 NE
Chamfered
pieces, face
dressings
MIDDLE MESOLITHIC
Goldhoard
Transitional Early/Late
Mesolithic
LATE MESOLITHIC
c 7000–4000 BC
(early 7th–late 5th
millenium cal BC)
Gardiner nd after Jacobi
1978, 1981)
Early Phase or
Pioneering later
Mesolithic
c 7000–6000 BC
Honey Hill type
assemblages (Reynier
2005, 29) (c 8000 BP)
Oblique points, backed
points, rhomboids,
scalene & isosceles
triangles,
inverse basally
retouched points
Howick (Waddington et al)
2007, 71)
(7970–7760 cal BC; phase 4
began 7560–7330 cal BC)
Scalene triangles (all
sizes), 2 oblique points,
isosceles triangles,
backed blades, 1 rod,
needle points
Flanchford Mill
(Ellaby 1985;
1987)
Rare Horsham points,
oblique points, scalene
triangles, straight
backed bladelets
Rock Common
(Harding 2000)
Rare Horsham points,
backed blades, scalene
triangles, convex backed
pieces, oblique points
Broom Hill (Waddington
2007, 212)
(hut 7610–7300 cal BC)
Mt Sandel (Waddington
2007, 215 (c 7500 cal BC))
Straight backed
bladelets,
inverse basally
retouched
points, scalene triangles,
needle points, rare
oblique points
Kettlebury 59
(Ellaby 1987)
Geometric phase of
the later Mesolithic,
c 6000–4000 BC
Large
microburins,
curved points
Area 6
(c 7580–7050
BC)
Straight backed bladelets, Spatulate
inverse basally retouched microburins
points, scalene triangles,
needle points, rare
oblique points
NPF 01 Pit 638
Straight backed bladelets,
2 oblique points, 1 inverse
basally retouched
Area 2
Straight backed bladelets
Area 4
Straight backed bladelets,
rare oblique points
Area 9 (c 6430–
6240 BC)
Straight backed bladelets,
scalene triangles
NPF 01 Pit 702
3 rods
Lydstep Haven
(c 5300 BP, Barton et al
1995,109)
Straight backed bladelets
Absence of
scrapers
South Haw (4230–3980
cal BC, Chatterton 2007)
March Hill Top (3940–3700
cal BC, Spikins 2002, 43)
Straight backed bladelets
?Area 11 (from
c 7460–7170
BC to 7060–
6690 BC)
Straight backed bladelets,
4-sided microliths
Small convex backed
pieces, micro scalene
triangles, 4-sided pieces
NPF 01 Pits
779, 772
Scalene triangles, few
straight backed bladelets
4-sided microliths, straight
backed bladelets rare
NPF 01 Pits
728/9
Charlwood
(Ellaby 2004)
(c 4500 BC)
Scarce Horsham points,
inversely retouched
microliths, backed blades,
oblique points
Tanged points, micro
scalene triangles
Area 10, S
Central
4-sided microliths
Area 10 , NE
Tanged points,
1 unfinished
Table 5.14 Diagnostic post-Mesolithic flintwork
Leaf
Area arrowhead
3
6
10
1
12
Other
Total
1
Oblique
arrowhead
Barbed & tanged
arrowhead
Discoidal
knife
Plano-convex Invasively retouched Polished flake
knife
knife
or fragment
1
1
1
1
Discoidal
core
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
5
1
3
Use Code
Bone
working
Hide
cutting
Hide
scraping
Hide
working
Hide
piercing
Butchering
Plant
cutting
Hafting
only
Weapon
point/barb
Wood
working
Grand
Total
Adzes
Burins
Denticulates
Group
End
scrapers
MR
blades
Microliths
MR
flakes
Truncates
Grand
Total
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
6
1
1
1
2
1 (lateral
edge)
1
1
1
1
16
16
1
2
5
4
3
28
1
11 2001
1
3
TA
4
Table 6.1 Tool use frequencies according to broad tool types.
Use Code
Bone working
Hide working
Butchering
Plant cutting
Weapon point
or barb
Wood working
Total
9
2
1
1
2
3
7
1
7
1
3
2
1
2
1
5
1
4
6
Area
10
7
1
4
3
2
1
1
1
10
6
2
3
2
1
14
5
7
2
4
Table 6.2 Spatial distribution of tool use by Area.
Total
3
1
18
9
2
16
1
48
48
Sites
Use
North Park
Farm
Lismore
Fields
B&Q
Meat/Butchering
19.1
0
41.4
Hide Working
38.3
53.3
28.6
0
10.0
0.0
Herbaceous Plant
4.3
3.3
17.1
Wood Working
2.1
0
0.0
Bone/Antler
2.1
3.3
10.0
Soft Material
Hard Material
0
6.7
0.0
Impact (Projectile)
34.0
23.3
2.8
Percent Total
99.9
99.9
99.9
47
30
70
Total Used
Table 6.3 Tool use percentile distributions for a sample of Mesolithic sites in Britain.
Small
Finds
Number
2
13
24
28
30
35
41
48
53
54
55
58
69
71
73
75
79
80
83
87
91
Type
Retouched flake
End scraper
Four sided microlith
Obliquely blunted point
microlith
Rod microlith
Backed blade
Inversely based point
microlith
Obliquely blunted point
microlith
Obliquely blunted point
microlith
Obliquely blunted point
microlith
Obliquely blunted point
microlith
?Lanceolate microlith
Lanceolate microlith
Scalene triangle microlith
Lanceolate microlith
Straight backed microlith
?Four sided microlith
Convex backed microlith
Rod microlith
Straight backed microlith
Lanceolate microlith
UseCode
H1U
H1S
H1P
Use
Hide
Hide
Hide
U0I
U0I
U0I
Armature
Armature
Armature
U0I
Armature
U0I
Armature
M2M
Butchering
U0I
Armature
M2P
Y1P
U0I
U0I
U0G
Y1P
U0I
Y1P
M1P
M1P
U0I
Butchering
Butchering
Armature
Armature
Undetermined
Butchering
Armature
Butchering
Butchering
Butchering
Armature
Table 6.4 List of Tools with use-wear
Small Finds
Type
UseCode
Number
2 Retouched flake
H1U
13 End scraper
H1S
24 Four sided microlith
H1P
28 Obliquely blunted point microlithU0I
30 Rod microlith
U0I
35 Backed blade
U0I
41 Inversely based point microlith U0I
48 Obliquely blunted point microlithU0I
53 Obliquely blunted point microlithM2M
54 Obliquely blunted point microlithU0I
55 Obliquely blunted point microlithM2P
58 ?Lanceolate microlith
Y1P
69 Lanceolate microlith
U0I
71 Scalene triangle microlith
U0I
73 Lanceolate microlith
U0G
75 Straight backed microlith
Y1P
79 ?Four sided microlith
U0I
80 Convex backed microlith
Y1P
83 Rod microlith
M1P
87 Straight backed microlith
M1P
91 Lanceolate microlith
U0I
102 Straight backed microlith
H0P
109 Scalene triangle microlith
H0S
110 Hollow based point microlith
U0I
123 Straight backed microlith
U0I
129 Straight backed microlith
H2M
131 Straight backed microlith
U0I
153 Modified blade
Y0S
154 Notched blade
P0O
159 Modified plunging blade
P0O
167 Modified blade
Y0S
185 Truncation
H0P
187 Truncation
H2P
190 Serrated blade
H2P
192 End scraper
M1P
196 Adze sharpening flake
W0I
197 Notch
H0S
204 Truncation
H2M
211 Serrated blade
H2P
224 Truncation
M1P
244 End scraper
H0S
245 End scraper
H1S
248 ?Serrated blade
H2P
304 Straight backed microlith
U0I
305 Rod/Straight backed microlith U0I
351 Unclassified microlith
U0I
445 Blade (Burin?)
H2S
448 Flake
B0P
Use
Hide
Hide
Hide
Armature
Armature
Armature
Armature
Armature
Butchering
Armature
Butchering
Butchering
Armature
Armature
Undetermined
Butchering
Armature
Butchering
Butchering
Butchering
Armature
Hide
Hide
Armature
Armature
Hide
Armature
Hide
Plant
Plant
Hide
Hide
Hide
Hide
Butchering
Wood
Hide
Hide
Hide
Hide
Hide
Hide
Hide
Armature
Armature
Armature
Hide
Bone/Antler
Illustration
Fig 5.26 no 1
Fig 5.26 no 3
Fig 5.31 no 2
Fig 5.31 no 17
Fig 5.26 no 13
Fig 5.26 no 22
-
Sample
No.
Spit No.
Context
No.
Description
Vol.
(Ltrs)
Corylus avellana
shell
Galium verum
182
151
246
119
132
159
188
C6-07-3
C5-77-1
C5-77-4
C5-87-1
C5-88-1
C5-97-1
C5-97-2
60
34
60
34
34
34
60
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
19.25
22.00
22.25
22.75
22.75
15.75
22.50
1
1
3
8
2
1
1
1
Table 7.1 Area 1: Plant macrofossil results
Sample Spit No.
No.
Context
No.
Description
Volume Charcoal
(Ltrs)
Weight
Number of
pieces
analysed
Quercus cf. Pinus
sp.
Unident.
358
F5-77
156
Hearth
3.5
0.01
0
0
0
0
509
F5-78
156
Hearth
3.75
0.12
4
0
1
3
508
F5-87
156
Hearth
10
0.06
3
0
0
3
359
321
445
F5-88
F5-94-7
F6-09
156
123
162
Layer
4.5
Poss. feature 1
Poss. hearth 2.25
0.05
3.43
0
1
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
437
F5-47
161
Small spread 15.00
6.20
22
19
0
3
436
F5-58
161
Small spread 10.00
2.24
14
10
0
4
Table 7.2 Area 6: Charcoal results for contexts 123, 156, 161 and 162
Sample No.
Spit No. Context No. Description Vol. (Ltrs) Galium sp. Corylus avellana
shell
430
F5-47-1
18
433
F5-47-2
106
369
F5-48-4
106
435
F5-58-2
106
379
F5-59-3
18
419
F5-60-4
18
421
F5-67-1
121
462
F5-67-2
106
381
F5-68-2
106
382
F5-68-3
106
463
F5-69-2
106
459
F5-76-1
18
360
F5-77-2
106
363
F5-77-4
106
510
F5-78-2
168
539
F5-78-6
106
511
F5-87-2
18
520
F5-87-3
168
521
F5-87-4
168
364
F5-88-2
106
368
F5-88-4
106
426
F5-89-2
106
428
F5-89-3
106
431
F5-89-4
106
443
F5-89-5
106
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
26.00
10
24.00
1
18.00
3
23.00
2
23.75
1
26.75
1
22.75
1
26.00
3
23.50
6
21.00
11
18.00
1
25.75
5
22.75
11
24.00
6
15.50
1
25.00
11
24.00
12
23.00
10
24.00
19
21.00
1
2
23.50
5
11.00
13
23.75
34
26.00
24
25.50
11
Galium verum
Triticum Unident.
sp.
1
3
1
1
1
273
F5-94-3
18
269
F5-94-4
18
265
F5-95-2
18
309
F5-95-7
106
270
F5-96-1
18
311
F5-96-3
106
425
F5-98-1
18
494
F5-98-1
106
498
F5-98-2
106
500
F5-98-3
106
507
F5-98-4
106
170
F6
33
313
F6-04-2
106
259
F6-05-2
18
260
F6-05-3
18
298
F6-05-6
106
245
F6-06-1
18
262
F6-06-1
18
528
F6-09-2
106
533
F6-09-3
106
299
F6-14-2
106
314
F6-16-2
106
447
F6-18-1
18
505
F6-18-4
106
236
F6-24-2
18
285
F6-24-3
106
288
F6-24-4
106
230
F6-25-2
18
229
F6-26-1
18
212
F6-34-1
18
214
F6-34-2
18
274
F6-34-4
106
277
F6-34-5
106
278
F6-34-6
60
280
F6-34-7
106
213
F6-35-1
18
215
F6-35-2
18
217
F6-35-3
18
275
F6-35-5
106
279
F6-35-7
106
216
F6-36-1
18
218
F6-36-2
18
282
F6-36-3
106
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
11.00
2
14.25
2
6.00
16.00
1
4
26.00
17
24.00
2
23.00
11
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Fill of hollow
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
1
2
1
6
18.00
7
27.00
2
26.00
5
21.25
3
21.00
6
22.75
2
16.00
1
23.25
1
5.25
23.00
1
1
2
21.00
2
25.00
1
22.75
22.25
6
2
4
21.50
10
24.50
1
20.00
10
20.75
9
23.75
13
15.50
5
24.50
6
21.50
2
11.25
13
22.75
13
23.50
21
22.75
9
23.00
6
16.50
1
16.50
1
21.50
15
22.75
6
23.50
1
21.00
5
24.00
1
25.00
9
Table 7.4 Area 6: Plant macrofossil results
1
Sample No. Spit No. Context No. Description Volume (Ltrs) Charcoal Weight Number Quercus Corylus Unident.
of pieces sp.
avellana
analysed
571
I5-89
122
319
I5-99-6 122
Poss.Hearth 24
0.03
1
1
0
0
Poss.
Hearth
0.61
26
7
15
4
15
Table 7.4 Area 9: Charcoal results for hearth 122
Sample No. Spit No.
570
Context No. Description
I5-89-1
Vol. (Ltrs) Corylus avellana Galium Galium verum Unident.
shell
sp.
121
Layer
35.50
33.25
1
31.00
1
574
I5-89-3
121
Layer
573
I5-89-2
121
Layer
23.75
544
I5-98-1
121
Layer
543
I5-100-1
121
Layer
23.50
23.75
545
I5-100-2
121
Layer
550
I5-100-4
121
Layer
24.00
552
I5-100-5
121
Layer
23.00
3
1
1
1
Table 7.5 Area 9: Plant macrofossil results
Sample Spit No. Context
No.
No.
492
H4-20
141
Description
Poss. fill of
pit?
Volume Charcoal Number of
Quercus sp. Pinus
(Ltrs)
Weight pieces analysed
sylvestris
87
2.82
17
12
0
Taxus
baccata
0
Cf.Prunus Acer sp. Unident.
3
0
2
518
H4-29
141
Poss. Pit
35.5
0.81
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
341
I4-11
141
Poss. Pit
26.75
4.38
15
11
0
0
1
0
3
340
I4-22
139
Poss. Hearth 12.25
0.07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
343
I4-55
126
Hearth
22.34
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
597
I4-56
126
Hearth
1.61
17
9
0
0
0
1
7
599
I4-56
179
Poss. Hearth 12
10.62
39
32
0
0
0
0
7
600
I4-56
126
Hearth
18.5
60.28
100
74
1
1
1
0
19
640
I4-56
179/126
Hearth
interface
7
40.31
46
43
0
0
0
0
3
469
I4-65
126
Hearth
20
1.03
5
4
0
0
0
0
1
338
I4-66-4
126
Hearth
13
93.09
100
81
0
0
0
0
19
346
J4-28
146
Hearth
23
23
0
0
0
0
0
37.00
Table 7.7 Area 10: Charcoal results
Sample No. Spit No.
492
H4-20
Context
No.
141
Description
Vol. (Ltrs)
Corylus Galium sp
avellana
1
Galium
verum
Poss. pit
87.00
341
I4-11
141
Poss. pit
26.25
535
I4-20-4
121
Layer
25.00
461
I4-23-4
121
Layer
24.00
493
I4-45-3
121
Layer
21.25
457
I4-47-3
159
Layer
22.25
6
424
I4-54-2
159
Layer
23.00
1
Unident.
1
1
1
2
3
450
J4-54-4
121
Layer
18.00
481
J4-43-1
159
Layer
23.00
1
497
J4-43-4
159
Layer
26.00
499
J4-43-5
121
Layer
22.75
1
600
I4-56
126
Hearth
18.50
1
391
I4-76-3
121
Layer
12.25
1
2
4
1
Table 7.8 Area 10: Plant macrofossil results
Sam.No
Spit No.
Con.
No.
Descrt.
Vol.
(Ltrs)
Charcoal
Weight
Num.
Ident.
Quercus
sp
Pomo.
Corylus
Betulaceae
Salix/
624
J6-45-7
160
Hearth
12.5
4.37
25
21
3
1
0
0
629
J6-45-8
160
Hearth
10.75
7.61
44
26
2
8
0
0
635
J6-45-9
160
Hearth
15
6.06
75
43
8
8
0
0
672
J6-45-11
160
Hearth
2
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
621
J6-96-9
160
Hearth
9
9
0
0
0
0
647
J6-46-10
160
Hearth
17.75
0.4
4
1
3
0
0
0
655
J6-46-11
160
Hearth
20.25
5.01
21
6
11
4
0
0
Pop.
657
J6-46-13
160
Hearth
18.5
9.24
62
51
3
4
0
0
658
J6-46-14
160
Hearth
26
10.1
81
51
7
1
0
0
679
160
Hearth
15
0.68
4
3
0
1
0
0
706
J6-4615/16
J6-55-5
169
Poss. hearth
11
0.28
4
1
0
2
1
0
707
J6-55-6
169
Poss. hearth
5.75
0.36
4
0
0
0
0
2
715
J6-55-12
160
Hearth
6
0.84
4
0
0
3
0
0
721
J6-55-13
160
Hearth
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
723
J6-55-14
160
Hearth
1
0.04
1
0
0
1
0
0
729
J6-55-14
160/1
75
Hearth
interface
3.75
0.89
5
5
0
0
0
0
726
J6-55-15
Hearth
6
None
0
0
0
0
0
0
556
J6-56-3,4
160/1
75
173
Poss. Hearth
1
3.07
5
2
0
0
0
0
547
J6-56-4
169
Poss. Hearth
5
0.31
0
0
0
2
0
0
620
J6-56-9
160
Hearth
11.5
1.03
6
4
0
1
0
0
648
J6-56-10
160
Hearth
12.00
1.15
11
8
1
0
0
0
719
J6-56-12
160
Hearth
6.5
0.7
6
0
0
0
0
0
725
J6-56-13
160
Hearth
2.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
625
J6-66
180
Hearth
8
0.6
4
2
0
0
0
0
601
J6-66-175
176
Poss. Hearth
10.25
0.87
2
0
0
0
0
Table 7.9 Area 11: Charcoal analysis results
Sample
No.
617
592
655
675
702
705
709
707
710
555
621
670
676
606
632
633
641
674
572
589
Spit No.
J6-45-4
J6-46-2
J6-46-11
J6-54-1
J6-55-2
J6-55-5
J6-55-6
J6-55-6
J6-55-7
J6-56-4
J6-56-9
J6-57-2
J6-57-3
J6-64-1
J6-64-3
J6-64-4
J6-64-5
J6-6410/13
J6-66-1
J6-66-5
Context
No.
121
174
160
174
164
174
121
169
121
121
182
121
121
174
121
121
121
185
Description
Layer
Fill of hollow
hearth
Fill of hollow
Fill of hollow
Fill of hollow
Layer
Poss. hearth
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Fill of hollow
Layer
Layer
Layer
Poss. hearth
Vol.
(Ltrs)
18.50
6.00
20.25
21.25
21.25
21.50
19.50
5.75
22.25
24.50
10.50
22.00
24.00
24.50
23.50
18.25
15.00
23.50
174
121
Fill of hollow
Layer
18.00
24.25
Table 7.10 Area 11: Plant macrofossil results
Galium
sp.
Corylus
avellana
2
Galium
verum
Triticum
sp.
3
6
2
1
4
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
1
7
5
1
49
25
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
Table 8.1 ICPMS data for samples NPF05-01 to NPF05-08
Sample
Standard
05-01
05-02
05-03
05-04
05-05
05-06
05-07
05-08
SiO2
62.74
99.15
99.47
99.94
99.58
99.29
99.73
99.64
99.64
Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO
13.80 5.46 2.76
0.31 0.34 0.01
0.21 0.34 0.01
0.22 0.31 0.01
0.18 0.33 0.01
0.18 0.50 0.01
0.18 0.35 0.09
0.18 0.30 0.01
0.24 0.37 0.01
CaO
2.54
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
Na2O
0.85
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
K2O
2.86
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
TiO2
0.55
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.08
P2O5
0.20
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MnO
0.051
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
Ba
592
23
22
20
23
22
23
19
22
Co
10
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
Cr
74
11
10
8
8
8
10
7
9
Cu
29
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
5
Li
46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rb
111
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
Nb
11.5
3.5
3.8
2.2
2.8
2.6
3.1
1.8
2.8
Cs
7.80
0.13
0.12
0.30
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.15
Hf
4.47
3.74
6.48
2.54
3.60
3.32
3.92
2.30
4.29
Ta
0.85
0.29
0.31
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.23
0.13
0.20
Tl
0.90
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.11
Ho
0.74
0.10
0.11
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.08
Er
2.03
0.25
0.31
0.21
0.28
0.23
0.23
0.20
0.27
Yb
2.22
0.50
0.61
0.40
0.52
0.41
0.47
0.36
0.46
Lu
0.38
0.07
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.07
Mo
1.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
Table 8.2 ICPMS data for samples NPF05-01 to NPF05-08
Sample
Standard
05-01
05-02
05-03
05-04
05-05
05-06
05-07
05-08
Ni
28
4
3
3
3
3
8
3
3
Sc
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sr
169
7
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
V
129
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
Zn
99
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
Zr
158
158
272
100
146
138
155
89
177
Pb
30
3
4
6
4
5
5
3
5
U
2.76
0.31
0.46
0.25
0.28
0.34
0.30
0.24
0.33
Th
9.51
0.64
0.76
0.53
0.64
0.45
0.56
0.37
0.58
Table 8.3 ICPMS data for samples NPF05-01 to NPF05-08
Sample
Standard
05-01
05-02
05-03
05-04
05-05
05-06
05-07
05-08
Y
26
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
La
28.3
6.9
2.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
Ce
58.9
5.7
4.7
3.5
4.2
4.2
4.9
4.7
4.8
Pr
6.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
Nd
26.7
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.7
Sm
5.00
0.42
0.43
0.36
0.40
0.41
0.46
0.40
0.49
Eu
1.12
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.10
Gd
3.99
0.44
0.41
0.27
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.32
0.30
Dy
3.65
0.37
0.45
0.28
0.40
0.35
0.38
0.27
0.31
Table 9.1 Radiocarbon results
δ13C
(‰)
-25.9
Radiocarbon
Age (BP)
8275 ±40
Calibrated Date (95%
confidence)
7480–7170 cal BC
-25.4
8275 ±40
7480–7170 cal BC
-24.8
3643±22
2140-1910 cal BC
charcoal, Corylus/Alnus
charcoal, Ulmus (R Gale)
-25.4
-24.9
3669±29
6771±38
2140-1950 cal BC
5730-5620 cal BC
charcoal, Pomoideae sp. (R
Gale)
charcoal, cf. Corylus/Alnus (R
Gale)
charcoal, herbaceous stem (R
Gale)
charcoal, Prunus (R Gale)
-25.4
8170±45
7330-7050 cal BC
-26.0
116±23
cal AD 1680-1940
-25.7
2905±29
1220-1000 cal BC
-24.7
1508±24
cal AD 470-610
charcoal, Pomoideae sp. (R
Gale)
charcoal, Corylus avellana (L
Farr)
charcoal, Quercus sp. sapwood
(L Farr)
charcoal, Corylus avellana (L
Farr)
charcoal, cf. Corylus/Alnus (R
Gale)
charcoal, Acer sp. (L Farr)
charcoal, Quercus sp. sapwood
(R Gale)
charcoal, Fraxinus (R Gale)
charcoal, Quercus sp. sapwood
(R Gale)
-23.9
648±23
cal AD 1280-1395
-23.9
7762 ±40
6660–6470 cal BC
-23.0
7468±32
6430-6240 cal BC
-25.8
7940 ±40
7050–6650 cal BC
-24.8
7931±40
7050-6650 cal BC
-26.3
-28.2
1510 ±27
2807±27
cal AD 440–620
1020-890 cal BC
-23.9
-24.3
110±23
108±22
cal AD 1680-1940
cal AD 1680-1935
Laboratory
code
OxA-16905
Sample ID
Context/Location
Material
436.CH/382
SUERC-13955
436.CH/815
Area 6 – hearth feature (161), spit [F558-3]
As OxA-16905
OxA-17591
376A
OxA-17592
OxA-17594
376B
510
OxA17596
521
OxA-17664
520A
Area 6 – (158) [F5-59], in association
with a re-fitting flint scatter
As OxA-17591
Area 6 – (168), spit [F5-78-2) which
surrounds a hearth-type feature (156)
Area 6 – (168), spit [F5-78-3) which
surrounds a hearth-type feature (156)
As OxA-17664
charcoal, unidentified twig (L
Farr)
charcoal, cf. Quercus sapwood
(L Farr)
charcoal, cf. Corylus (R Gale)
OxA-17595
520B
As OxA-17664
OxA-17661
438A
OxA-17662
438B
Area 6 – (157), spit [F5-48-3] which
formed a small spread around a hearthtype feature (161)
As OxA-17761
OxA-16904
319.CH/368
Area 9 – hearth (122), spit [I5-99-6]
OxA-17659
319A
As OxA-16904
SUERC-12922
319.CH/370
As OxA-16904
OxA-17590
319B
As OxA-16904
OxA-16933
OxA-17593
597.CH/701
455A
OxA-17663
OxA-17660
455B
396
Area 10 – hearth (126), spit [I4-56-5]
(121), spit [I4-23-2] from near an area of
burnt flint (139)
As OxA-17593
Area 10 - (121), spit [I4-21-2] from near
an area of burnt flint (139)
SUERC-13207
629.CH/761
Area 11 – uppermost spit of hearth
(160), spit [J6-45-8]
As SUERC-13207
OxA-16934
629.CH/375
SUERC-12926
655.CH/380
SUERC-12927
658.CH/297
OxA-16921
658.CH/378
Area 11 – middle spit of hearth (160),
spit [J6-46-11]
Area 11 – bottom spit of hearth (160) spit
[J6-46-14]
As SUERC-12927
OxA-13042
OxA-13061
A11.1/2/NPF02B
A11.1/2/NPF02A
top 5cm test pit A11.1
top 5cm test pit A11.1
charcoal, Maloideae sp. (L Farr)
-27.1
8235 ±35
7450–7080 cal BC
charcoal, Corylus avellana (L
Farr)
charcoal, Maloideae sp. (L Farr)
-27.7
7990 ±39
7060–6690 cal BC
-27.0
8205 ±35
7340–7070 cal BC
charcoal, Maloideae sp. (L Farr)
-27.3
8270 ±35
7460–7170 cal BC
charcoal, Corylus avellana (L
Farr)
charcoal, Corylus avellana
charcoal, Corylus avellana
-28.4
8005 ±39
7070–6760 cal BC
-24.3
-22.6
2735 ±55
2781 ±26
1010–800 cal BC
1010–840 cal BC
Table 9.2 OSL results from test pit A11
Laboratory number
Age (BP)
De (Gy)
uncertainty
GL03109
2800±200
1.93
0.08
GL03110
22800±2200
7.65
0.6
GL03111
32500±3600
9.63
0.63
Grain size
Min grain size (µm)
Max grain size (µm)
125
250
125
250
125
250
NaI γ-spectrometry (in
situ)
%K
error (%K)
Th (ppm)
error (ppm)
U (ppm)
error (ppm)
0.16
0.01
1.95
0.12
0.81
0.08
0
0
0.94
0.09
0.53
0.06
0.01
0.09
1
0.1
0.33
0.06
0.22
0.1
0.09
0
0
0
0.22
0
2.26
0.02
0.67
0.01
0.01
0
1.23
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.02
0
0.85
0.01
0.19
0
0.59
1.35
1.55
51
51
51
0
0
0
110
110
110
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.02
0.02
0.02
Total β dose fate Gy/ka
error
0.28
0.01
0.06
0
0.05
0
Moisture content
Moisture
(water/ wet sediment)
error
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.03
Total dose rate (Gy/ka)
error
0.69
0.03
0.34
0.02
0.3
0.03
Age (ka)
error
% error
2.8
0.2
7.14
22.8
2.2
9.65
32.1
3.6
11.21
Total γ dose rate
(Gy/ka)
error
ICP-MS analysis
%K
error (%K)
Th (ppm)
error (ppm)
U (ppm)
error (ppm)
Cosmic dose
calculations
Depth (m)
Latitude (deg),
north positive
Longitude (deg),
east positive
Altitude (m OD)
Cosmic dose rate
(Gy/ka)
error
Table 9.3 TL results from flint recovered from test pit A11
Laboratory number
Age (BP)
De (Gy)
uncertainty
GL03112
20100±4700
7.87
1.79
GL03113
10300±1200
4.22
0.44
GL03114
6600±1600
2.42
0.59
GL03115
58500±19800
21.86
7.25
GL03117
12500±1300
4.01
0.3
Grain size
Min grain size (µm)
Max grain size (µm)
125
180
125
180
125
180
125
180
125
180
ICP-MS analysis
(associated
sediment)
%K
error (%K)
Th (ppm)
error (ppm)
U (ppm)
error (ppm)
0.02
0
1.08
0.02
0.23
0.01
0.02
0
1.08
0.02
0.23
0.01
0.01
0
0.39
0.01
0.17
0.01
0.01
0
0.39
0.01
0.17
0.01
0.02
0
0.57
0.01
0.22
0
Total γ dose rate
(Gy.ka)
error
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
ICP-MS analysis
(flint)
%K
error (%K)
Th (ppm)
error (ppm)
U (ppm)
error (ppm)
0.04
0
0.2
0
0.16
0
0.04
0
0.18
0.01
0.21
0.01
0.03
0
0.17
0.01
0.25
0
0.03
0
0.21
0.01
0.25
0
0.02
0
0.08
0
0.18
0.01
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.65-0.70
0.65-0.70
1.00-1.05
51
51
51
1.00-1.05
51
1.60-1.65
51
0
0
0
0
0
110
110
110
0.19
0.19
0.18
110
0.18
110
0.16
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.
0
0
0
0
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0
0.01
0
0.37
0.02
0
0.32
Total α dose rate
(Gy/ka)
error
Cosmic dose
calculations
Depth (m)
Latitude (deg),
north positive
Longitude (deg),
east positive
Altitude (m OD)
Cosmic dose rate
(Gy/ka)
error
Total β dose fate
Gy/ka
error
Moisture content
Moisture
(water/ wet sediment)
error
0.06
Total dose rate
(Gy/ka)
error
0.39
0.41
0.37
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Age (ka)
error
% error
20.1
4.7
23.38
10.3
1.2
11.65
6.6
1.6
24.24
58.5
19.8
33.85
12.5
1.3
10.4
Table 9.4 OSL results from Area 9 hearth section (122), North Park Farm,
Bletchingley
Laboratory number
Age (BP)
De (Gy)
uncertainty
NPF05-01
10580±930
3.15
0.14
NPF05-02
23750±1750
7.97
0.35
NPF05-03
24090±1980
7.32
0.35
NPF05-04
630540±50070
168.66
7.7
Grain size
Min grain size (µm)
Max grain size (µm)
180
250
180
250
180
250
180
250
Measured
concentrations
standard fractional error
%K
error (%K)
Th (ppm)
error (ppm)
U (ppm)
error (ppm)
0.05
0.008
0
0.64
0.032
0.28
0.014
0.05
0.008
0
0.76
0.038
0.46
0.023
0.05
0.017
0.001
0.64
0.032
0.31
0.016
0.05
0.008
0
0.53
0.027
0.25
0.013
1.11
0.1
1.47
0.1
1.325
0.1
1.685
0.1
2
2
2
2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
51
51
51
51
0
0
0
0
100
77.6
100
77.6
100
77.6
100
77.6
0.18
0.171
0.175
0.166
0.021
0.017
0.018
0.015
0.185
0.176
0.179
0.171
0.021
0.017
0.019
0.016
Moisture content
Moisture
(water/ wet sediment)
error
0.031
0.042
0.052
0.052
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Total dose rate (Gy/ka)
error
% error
0.3
0.02
7.58
0.34
0.02
5.92
0.3
0.02
6.66
0.27
0.02
6.5
Age (ka)
error
% error
10.58
0.93
8.78
23.75
1.75
7.37
24.09
1.98
8.2
630.54
50.07
7.94
Cosmic dose
calculations
Depth (m)
error (m)
Average overburden
3
density (g.cm )
3
error (g.cm )
Latitude (deg),
north positive
Longitude (deg),
east positive
Altitude (m OD)
Geomagnetic latitude
Dc (µGy/ka), 55ºN, 0km
altitude
error
Cosmic dose rate
(Gy/ka)
error